BeaverFalls

and then NIL…

We’ve gone way too far to the extreme of skills and drills and not enough of teaching the game. Not x’s and o’s but truly teaching the importance of and thoroughly how to’s on faceoffs, backchecking, supporting the play, getting open, decision making etc. 

There is no perfect solution to it and every change is going to have its own set of consequences. 

In my utopia, they move checking back to 12u, increase non-checking divisions/leagues for those who desire.  But that isn’t feasible for the most part.

I have heard discussion of them eliminating checking in anything below juniors in the USAH realm.  Driving force is long-term liability for lawsuits etc.  That’ll be very interesting. Who knows.

11 hours ago, GrumpyOldPucker said:

That's nothing new..... I still remember getting called for an elbow back in 1982 when a player literally ran his face into my left elbow (I'm right handed) after I gained possession of the puck in the center circle in an opening faceoff. I was 6 foot tall, he was about 5'5"..... 

 

But in all seriousness, if the puck carrier delivers what the NHL commentators laud as a great "reverse hit" that should be penalized and is what the rule I referenced above was aimed at. Nothing wrong with bracing for contact and making them bounce off, but at some point it crosses the line when the puck carrier aggressively initiates contact. Again hard to describe but I know it when I see it. 

 

Yes, too many officials call the result of the play rather than the actual actions of the players.

Some of it is intentional just either not really understanding the game or to appease a rabid fanbase, who also doesn’t understand the game but just saw little Yanni get yardsaled trying to hit someone, poorly.  

More often it comes from not seeing the play from having small crews, inexperienced or having difficulty keeping up. Just the nature of the beast. Not bashing officials; there isn’t enough to go around so you get what you get. 

57 minutes ago, aaaahockey said:

There is still a charging penalty I believe.  That's not what I mean though. I'm saying when a kid 2/3 the weight of the puck carrier skates full speed across the ice to hit a larger kid carrying the puck and bounces off them into oblivion.  Refs will often call the puck carrier just because he is big. It's insane. 

its called officiating the results, not the act. 

3 hours ago, sadday4hockey said:

And my understanding is that in a lot of cases, the families agree with you. However, they are being forced to use the extra A in order for ownership/coach/gym owner to collect their extra A worth of payments.

Does someone have them at gunpoint?  

Everyone complains about faux AAA until their kid is bumped down to A minor pink from AA if those kids go back down lmao. 

This is year 43 of “more emphasis on head contact, hits from behind etc” that still rarely gets properly enforced 

All these rules lead to is a slower, choppier game. 

Yay, new jerseys. 

Is it even worth playing Altoona, State College, Jets and Warriors anymore?  Long trip for bad officiating and horrible competition. 

2 hours ago, Jack Handey said:

Does this tournament ever come west?  Might draw more participants if it was local.

I think at one point, maybe 15 years or so, it was in Johnstown. 

I heard they had a Zoom meeting to notify the players, but word never got out so only a couple were told first hand. 

3 hours ago, aaaahockey said:

What is your goal?   This goes back to the comment that we would be better off having many more rec teams and many fewer travel teams.  For the vast majority of hockey players (everywhere and in western PA) the goal is to have fun. 

I don’t disagree with you. My point is that just mindlessly playing higher levels doesn’t make someone a better player. Most would be better suited and better players for investing in more lessons and camps and playing at a lower and less expensive level.

31 minutes ago, aaaahockey said:

And again wtf does it matter?   I mean looking at my youngest playing rec baseball a couple years ago - he played 14 games and had 4 practices and had a great time.  What are we trying to do?   Let kids have fun for gods sake. 

if that is your goal, then great!  

2 hours ago, carroll81 said:

The latest few post show the problems of hockey and youth sports in general today, especially regarding "development".

Many parents want "development" because they want to keep up with the Jones and brag about their kids

Some/many parents want "development: because they have unrealistic knowledge of college admissions and sports

Most of the kids just want to play games.

What USA Hockey advises for development (3:1 practice/ game ration; playing multi-sports) is not what the market (families) or the suppliers (rinks/clubs) want. 

The suppliers follow the market.

 

You’re absolutely right. People want games.

My thought process is for the average person, if you really want to get better, play whatever level, with a good program and coaches, keep it to 1-2 (eg a travel and a scholastic) teams, and instead of loading up on games, tournament teams, spring teams, summer teams, take lessons a few times a month, a few camps, invest in and use home training aids and you’ll get a ton more bang for the buck. 

The one point that often gets overlooked is that quality practice, lessons, camps etc is paramount to development. 

I shudder when I see teams or kids playing 60-80 games a year and only on the ice for practice maybe 1:1 game to practice at best. 

I am of the viewpoint that it’s people’s prerogative to play whatever level they want/make.  Obviously it waters it all down though when it’s illegitimate but to each their own. No different than travel baseball etc. 

3 hours ago, hockeyisgreat said:

Wow, I like that analysis. You are obviously someone who is in the know. Had no idea about the Barons. So would you consider the 06 Birth year in Western Pa to be strong or just diluted by all the teams.  I thought I saw that the top 3 were in the Top half of Tier 1 rankings.  You obviously have an ear to SW PA Hockey so I won't doubt your info on the Big Bear Group at PIA.   I guess I think it was a tragedy from the start because they had those kids go through 4 grueling days of Hockey. 3 scrimmage days against 05 kids.  They should have cut the kids they thought clearly weren't good enough for AAA after the first or second day and let them move on.  Beaver Falls seems to think that this was the advertised Coaches decision to not have a team at 06. After checking out the MY Rankings for that 05 team above I wouldn't want my kid on a team that goes 2 & 49. And gets beat by double digits in a whole lot of games. They say adversity makes you stronger but that's a whole other level. So maybe they did the right thing. But we will never know if they could have coached them up.

no. thats not true. it’s that noone wanted to play for the coach. 

6 hours ago, dazedandconfused said:

It's going to be an entirely different world at PIA with the pending sale of yet another rink to the Black Bear group. Fees will skyrocket and many people will be left holding themselves in their hand. The 06 thing was a tragedy from the start. Based solely on them getting players from EuroRussia to even make the team an A Major team.

The ONLY reason that team folded was because the players declined the offers. It had nothing to with Kosick and Yuri trying to do the right thing.

 

this had zilch to do with these two. they weren’t the advertised coach for this team. 

Quite a few were less than impressed with the coaches. 

It would be foolish to state PPE isn’t the top dog AAA program around. Esmark a moderate 2nd. These pop-up teams otherwise?  Not so much. 

On 5/6/2021 at 10:37 AM, HSFBLJ said:

Go check D-1 rosters, you will find some PPE kids.  You don,t see kids fom other organizations.  

I do see them from Esmark. 

11 minutes ago, hockeyisgreat said:

How do you know that going into tryouts?  Very tough decisions to make when your kid really wants to play AAA. How do you know which team is a good investment. I guess maybe limit tryout to the top 3 and if you don't make it move on to a good AA team?

my point is caveat emptor

4 hours ago, hockeyisgreat said:

How is clear AAA talent measured? Would teams that are in the top half of AAA be considered legit? If that's the case then 9 of the 14 teams in AAA  14,15 and 16U are legit and only 5 are in the lower half of their tiers. There are over 100 teams in each level and to have 3 above half in each level, I consider pretty good.  To make a long story short I think the talent in Western PA is on par with most other areas of the country except for maybe Minnesota, Michigan & New York. Just my opinion.

A AAA team that plays a mostly AA schedule and goes .500 against them is not a good investment