Lifelongbender

7 hours ago, GrumpyOldPucker said:

Heard that EVERYONE that enters the rink has to sign a waiver..... players, coaches, fans, everyone.... 

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.

16 hours ago, Not Gam said:

You can also no longer check someone who is in a battle with someone else for the puck, 640e: "A minor penalty shall be assessed to any player who delivers a body check to an opponent who is physically engaged for possession of the puck with one or more other players.", and you have to keep your stick down whenever you check someone, 640d: "A minor penalty shall be assessed to any player who delivers a body check with no effort to gain possession of the puck and the blade of the player’s stick is above the knees.", there is also "with no effort to gain possession of the puck" in that rule, so you still technically can, under specific circumstances.

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.

1 hour ago, sadday4hockey said:

They should add copper or aluminum so everyone gets a medal. It's shameful that one team gets excluded like that!!

Everyone's a comedian!

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.

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.

22 hours ago, RJUSHL said:

Did PAHL assign the three digit code that is used by My Hockey Rankings?

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.

All, if we take a look at the top of the page ay MHR, it includes this note:

Quote

2021-22 Rankings will be Released Wednesday September 29, 2021. Prior to this release, you can find the pre-season team listings and/or previous season rankings below.

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.

14 hours ago, Saucey said:

No. There are more teams listed for 16uAA than played last year, for instance. I doubt PAHL sent any thing, divisions haven't been set. My guess is self reporting or people looking at organization websites.

 

@Saucey is right on this. The divisions haven't been set yet at PAHL. 

That data is, as far as I can tell, entered by volunteers. I do not believe that PAHL does anything with MHR.

34 minutes ago, aaaahockey said:

I mean this also begs the question if they could keep their program and sell the ice rink at the same time.   Im assuming a lot of this has to do with the rink itself not being profitable.  

Yeah, these two questions are why I think you'd have to be nuts to play there at this point.

8 hours ago, GrumpyOldPucker said:

Yeah, except where would the basketball team practice every day? Remember that both are winter sports and it costs a whole lot less to just turn on the lights than it does to keep a 17,00 square foot ice cube frozen.

All of which is why it seems so likely that closing the D1 hockey program has been on their minds - or officially part of their plan - since the arena was in the planning stage. I still believe that they probably already had an interested buyer for the ice center when they broke ground on the basketball arena.

17 hours ago, Spear and Magic Helmet said:

Recruiting will definitely be tougher, but keep in mind there are only around 60 NCAA D1 teams, period. It's not like football, which has something like 120 teams at the top level, plus 1-AA and so on, or basketball, which has something like 350. On top of that, something like 30% of NCAA D1 rosters are Canadian players. If your choices are play NCAA D1 at RMU or don't play D1 at all, then you might just go to RMU and worry about what happens in the future when it happens. There is a huge supply of US born players for NCAA D1 Hockey.

Will the team they do end up fielding even really be D1? In the end, no matter what happens with the program, there's no real sense in which whatever team takes the ice for them this season will really be a D1 RMU hockey team.

22 hours ago, PUCKCOVID19 said:

didn't they lose a decent amount of players to transfers ? Something like 7-10 kids and it was the better ones too.... Guess a bunch of club kids will move up for a season. BUT who in their right mind would wanna go there after this rug pull?

Right. There's two issues. One is that the club they'll field this season will be a shadow of their former club.

The second is how they'll recruit anyone ever again.

1 hour ago, sadday4hockey said:

You know how that goes, use taxpayer money and tell everyone things are free.

Now........ just wait for it.

 

Aren't they explicitly claiming that the Penguins are paying for all of it?

They're saying it will also be the home of the Middle School Training Program or somesuch. What the heck is that? Also, it's currently only scheduled to be in operation for this winter season.

I'm not sure what the heck is going on with this.

19 hours ago, Saucey said:

The link to the presentation indicates other uses in addition to it. It doesn't have much seating for an audience, so maybe not much parking is anticipated. I think it is a very exciting development.

Back when a large and well-known local development company was involved in the development plans, I knew one of the managers on that project. They had planned to provide essentially zero parking. The guy told me that they would have parking arrangements with the parking garages across the busway from the rink, which is a terrible idea if you're going to be playing hockey there. Reading the presentation, I see that this is still pretty much the plan.

I know that Peduto says that locals have been asking for skating there. I wonder how much the local residents will love the constant hourly inflow and outflow of vehicles as teams arrive and depart for games.

I don't see why it couldn't have parking even under the roof. This building is enormous - 56,000 SF, or 1.84 acres.

Fun fact - Led Zeppelin played a concert there in 1969.

I'm still wondering how that will all go over in that very congested, narrow-streeted, residential neighborhood. 

52 minutes ago, HockeyMom5 said:

https://wtae.com/article/robert-morris-university-pittsburgh-college-hockey-foundation-working-together/37023951

Still begs the question of why anyone who can play anywhere else wouldn't prefer it, but this is good news.

I'll believe in the continuation of the programs when I see them take the ice, though. I won't be holding my breath.

6 hours ago, GrumpyOldPucker said:

I believe that there were studies done.... I don't know\remember details anymore. It may have been a result\recommendation of the various concussion studies that recommended that we try to limit the potential of brain injury due to collision\contact based on and age-development curve.

I'm pretty sure that's correct. That's the same reason that girls/women don't have checking at any level. The studies found that female players are much more susceptible to concussions at all ages.

1 hour ago, RJUSHL said:

You're absolutely right about that. There are some huge tactical advantages to utilizing delayed offsides and also dumping the puck in deep. I'm not saying those two things are one-in-the-same, but they play off each other. NHL teams utilize both because it's smart to do so.

But that's kind of my point. When the option is available, teams at all levels will utilize the leeway given to them. I think it's smart to take that option away from younger players. Instead of putting the puck into an area and then chasing it down, it's smart to force younger players to make tape to tape passes and keep possession at all costs.  That's a much harder skill to learn than just putting the puck into an area.

I'm all for rules that cut down on the number of dump ins. Defenseman win those most of the time anyways. I want to challenge kids to make clean zone entries. And when their entry fails make them regroup and move the puck around and try again.

I don't think there is any doubt that eliminating delayed offsides will reduce the number of dump and chase scenarios. How much? I'm not sure.

I can see that you believe in this strongly, and to be honest this is the ONLY defense of this rule change I have read that appears to have any thought behind it at all, including the one used as an explanation by USA Hockey. In fact, this is a generally reasonable position, although I disagree with it.

I'll just say that while you're right that it's smart to force younger players to make the harder plays so that they'll learn to make them, this rule change makes the rule that nobody at any youth level can choose to dump the puck in amateur hockey, while the rule before was that players 12U and younger could not. I'd argue that by the time you're 14U, your passing should be coming along (and definitely by 16U, right?), and giving players more options is important for flow. We agree that NHL teams use both options because it is smart, but in the next paragraph you suggest that playing a puck to an area is an easier skill. That may be true - just whacking a puck into an area is easier than putting it on your teammate's stick while not getting them killed - but the tactical decision on when to do one or the other is neither a simple one, or one without consequences, and is a much harder thing to grasp while under game pressure than the pass is to make.

If the goal is to encourage younger players to regroup and enter cleanly in an effort to promote the puck handling skills, I'd have to ask if there is any age that doesn't count as younger in that argument. At this time we are forcing everyone who isn't in a pro game, a school game or a beer league to do a squirt-level regroup.

I think we both have well-reasoned positions, and it sure looks to me like our difference is largely in whether we want kids to be forced to develop their physical skills (your position, simplified) or their hockey sense. These are things about which reasonable people can debate, but my view is that, especially at levels where body checking is legal, you have to be able to quickly and accurately make those decisions so that you 1) stay alive; 2) promote your team's objectives; and 3) deny the opponent's objectives. Dumping the puck strategically is a very important part of all three of those hockey sense items - which we can all see from the way that NHL players blend their usage of them - and passing to an area itself is a big part of the game that we are discouraging in favor of neutral zone regroups. Passing to an area and battling for the puck is also a tactically useful play from time to time. 

We'll never agree here, because we have different priorities. But I just don't agree that the neutral zone regroup is inherently superior to a strategic dump and touch-up either from a tactical or technical/skill sense. The best players use both, deciding almost instantaneously which is more appropriate for each game situation. Eliminating delayed offsides is, in this sense, going to reduce creativity and spontaneity in the game. For my money American hockey in general, and Western Pennsylvanian hockey very much in particular, is full of kids with great hands and impressive skating and the hockey sense of a baseball player. We need to be developing hockey sense as much as skills. I think this rule change hurts that cause.

Just now, Saucey said:

Why was it changed from this to begin with? Does anyone know if anyone compared stats of injuries from before pushing checking to older ages to after? Because quite frankly, all of our observations from individual experience really doesn't mean anything, it's all just conjecture.

Excellent point, actually, @Saucey.

1 hour ago, RJUSHL said:

I certainly don't have all the answers but my gut feeling would be to introduce checking at the 10U level when even the largest kids on the ice usually top out at less than 100 pounds. But then at the same time have extreme penalties for leaving your feet, making any contact whatsoever with the head, hitting anything except front of jersey, and be super harsh and picky about boarding. I think kids need to develop these skills before they hit puberty. Would also teach awareness to the head down tiny forwards.

Football is certainly an easier sport to learn than hockey, but kids are tackling and learning how to tackle at a young age. You always have really good athletes that start football later, maybe middle school or high school. Oftentimes these kids excel eventually but for the first month or so they are a danger to themselves and others. They don't yet know how to tackle or be tackled, but they are big, fast, and strong. It's dangerous for everyone. Some work through that, others get hurt and never play again.

I haven't watched the documentary yet, but I plan to. On this subject I think @RJUSHL is on the right tack - start body checking as soon as possible, so that smaller, more equally-sized kids can learn it together.

2 hours ago, RJUSHL said:

Love the removal of the delayed offsides. It will lead to a more puck possession style of game, increased awareness and passing, and cut down on dump and chase scenarios. It's also going to make neutral zone play a lot more exciting. I think it will be good for development. I'm all for ways to emphasize skill development. This checks that box for sure.

The argument "they need to learn it at some point so might as well start young" is ridiculous. Good players can learn delayed offsides in a single practice. The implementation and strategy around delayed offsides will take two practices.

I respectfully disagree, but I guess there are two sides to every argument.

My thought is that if there were great advantages to playing the puck "creatively" in the neutral zone without delayed offsides, NHL hockey would look alot different already since they'd have found the most creative possible ways to play the puck. Instead, the NHL guys more or less do the same regroup that squirts would do when they can make a cross ice pass on losing the zone, and dump it around like every proponent of this rule change is saying we'd be better off not doing when the cross ice pass is not there. In short, it's my view that if there were great creative ways to play the puck in response to a delayed offsides that didn't involve dumping it, we'd have seen them already at the highest level of play, because those guys are the best in the world and they find the best ways to do things pretty fast.

There are going to be a bunch of offsides calls which will slow games down and make them longer, and when a player is left hanging without a teammate to pass to just outside the line, they'll either dump the puck and take the offside, end up giving up possession, or take a big hit and then give up possession.

Also, it's not clear to me that "dump and chase" is always a dumb, or uncreative play.

Again, I understand that there are always two sides, but this is my thinking on the subject.

10 hours ago, aaaahockey said:

Agreed with you totally.  Also the referees don't help.  I've seen 75 lb kids run into 100 lb kids at the peewee level and get larger kids called for a penalty when the larger kid is CARRYING THE PUCK. 

This happens often enough to rise to the level of a pet peeve for me.

12 hours ago, Guru said:

Agree 150%

But then you wouldn't be able to say you're part of an independent AAA team and wear those fancy sweaters.

It's absolutely true that if those players all played in PAHL it would be a much stronger league, but the strength of opponents is hardly the only, and probably not even the primary, reason most of those players aren't playing PAHL. It's chicken or egg, really, but at this point that's not EVER going to change.

18 minutes ago, twoboys said:

I would keep it to 5 teams.  Have each team play the 4 other teams either 3 or 4 times.  Frankly, what these parents/players want is to play less PAHL games and not more.  By keeping it to 5 teams I think you make it so each team is competitive.  The less teams you have the more likely you have some teams that aren't very good and this defeats the whole purpose.

If 4 games this sets up nicely for two home games and two away for each team.

I believe that PAHL rules limit games to 2 home and 2 away for each team.