Lifelongbender

I saw a copy of an alleged set of rule modifications for return to hockey to be voted on by PAHL. I haven't been able to find it anywhere to post it here. I would also note that coaches at my organization have been told for weeks that there would be no placements at any level above 12U.

Midgets and bantams are definitely not having placements. I thought I had heard that the squirts and peewees might still have some placement games, though.

I bet they get that many for basketball every game, right? I don't think that 3000 per game is impossible. It might be optimistic, but it's conceptually right in any case.

Supposedly the Armory is still in the works. I know someone involved in the project. But "still in the works" in this context means somethings similar to "planned for when we hit the lottery", I think. There are too many obstacles to this project. It's a perfect building, but in a literal residential neighborhood with no parking. It's hard to imagine how enough cars could get into, and out of, this area, to support a serious hockey program. Or how the locals would be able to tolerate the traffic on top of the serious congestion already there.

Gilmour Academy is a pretty good place to play hockey, too. I'm a Pittsburgh guy but I went to college in Cleveland and they're legendary out there.

And you may be right about them having the money if they wanted to spend it. Actually wanting to spend it on hockey is another thing entirely.

Yeah, you're right on your first sentence. I admit that freely. I guess I'm an old guy who'd be driving to the rink from the South Hills, and not a kid who just wants to fill in a college Friday night. As for the rest of it, you're right about the number of schools that do have on-campus rinks. I wouldn't disagree that Pitt could build a rink if they wanted to, and probably rent ice to Chatham, CMU, and Duquesne in the process. Of course, what I was getting at was your point that it wouldn't really be economically smart because it wouldn't make any money. Especially considering the cost of building one in Oakland.

I don't guess they are taking Canadians over Pittsburghers for any reason other than that they are taking the best players, and there a MANY more Canadians than there are Pittsburghers. One has to think they are selecting their players on the basis of scouting and performance in showcases. Come to think of it, you don't see too much scouting in Pittsburgh. It's possible that Canadians are over-represented because that's where the scouts are.

Both of you are right, I think. I don't have time for anything other than youth hockey once the season starts - I get to the Pens Kids game every year and that's about it. I do sometimes get to catch an RMU game if I'm out there for another reason, or if one of my kids' teams goes as a group. I do think that on-campus rinks would make college hockey more successful, in that it would be something else for college kids to do on a random evening, but honestly I wonder if a college program could ever pay for a rink in Pittsburgh, even with rentals. I'd rather go to the island to see RMU than deal with campus, for my money.

In fact, weren't they reporting just the other week that the PA Department of Health had said that youth sports don't appear to be a significant vector of infection? Maybe I heard wrong.

Which really is part of my point. Obviously this is interesting information, but firstly it doesn't bear on hockey directly at all, and secondly it doesn't matter what PIAA says if the governor can shut everything down again at will. Hockey and basketball are both close in, face-to-face sports that happen indoors on relatively small surfaces. I don't think we can learn anything from them saying golf can proceed.

Still no mention of ice hockey...

Thanks for posting this. Any development in this situation is interesting. However, this article, while interesting, is clearly football-centric. It doesn't say a thing about any indoor sports at all, and only mentions golf and tennis in passing. Basketball and hockey are going to be a totally different thing in the minds of the decision makers. They happen indoors and in fairly close environs.

Almost posted this myself today. It seems to address this topic perfectly.

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.