Montour Hockey

[Flavio]

Sounds like former commish said yeah and someone after said no. Not how it works PIHL! Judge Mathis bout to straighten that ass out! 

Edited February 27, 2023 by Flavio

[Flavio]

5 minutes ago, Pucks11 said:

You wouldn't have to stand outside as they are open for anyone unless deemed emergency or private ???

Lol… there you have it folks. Same type with a stop watch in the stands and a spreadsheet with every player and their personal info on it 

Edited February 27, 2023 by Flavio

[Flavio]

Pucks11 is invested - he was at the meeting and if that’s all they have on Montour, then MT is about to clean house with these people. 
 

“THey DiDnT fiLe tHe CorReCt paPeR wOrK jUdge”… 

 

So why didn’t you tell them that in the first place. 
 

LOL
 

- Judge Flavio

Edited February 27, 2023 by Flavio

[carroll81]

My wager:

Judge says, why didn't you catch this sooner.  You let him play 10 games and they thought he was eligible.  Those games are good. He's now ineligible, so he can no longer play.  Team move on without him.

Hypothetical:

Let's say that this did not get brought up now and Montour went all the way through to states.  When the East reviews the rosters and finds the kid ineligible, they bring it up, kid is ruled ineligible.  Would the team still be allowed to play?  I have a feeling they would.  Maybe PA Hockey can shed some light on what would happen here or what has happened in the past in this situation.

 

 

[Flavio]

Just now, carroll81 said:

My wager:

Judge says, why didn't you catch this sooner.  You let him play 10 games and they thought he was eligible.  Those games are good. He's now ineligible, so he can no longer play.  Team move on without him.

Hypothetical:

Let's say that this did not get brought up now and Montour went all the way through to states.  When the East reviews the rosters and finds the kid ineligible, they bring it up, kid is ruled ineligible.  Would the team still be allowed to play?  I have a feeling they would.  Maybe PA Hockey can shed some light on what would happen here or what has happened in the past in this situation.

 

 

Exactly.

[Flavio]

I go take out a 500k loan, the bank gives it to me and I spend all 500k of it. Later on they find a discrepancy in my paperwork or that my credit is shit… they can’t take back their initial decision because they f*cked up. That loan is good to go.

Once they realize the error, they can refuse me another loan. Just like PIHL can refuse to let the goalie participate. Can’t go back and take the past from Montour because PIHL failed to do their checks and balances. 
 

Bank has no way of proving my intent - I asked for a loan - they game me one. Montour asked for a kid to play, they let him. 
 

 

- Flavi Esquire 

Edited February 27, 2023 by Flavio

[Pucks11]

18 minutes ago, Flavio said:

Pucks11 is invested - he was at the meeting and if that’s all they have on Montour, then MT is about to clean house with these people. 
 

“THey DiDnT fiLe tHe CorReCt paPeR wOrK jUdge”… 

 

So why didn’t you tell them that in the first place. 
 

LOL
 

- Judge Flavio

You really can't comprehend simple sentences can you?

How was PIHL supposed to know they didn't file the proper paperwork at the beginning of the season when they listed the kid as a current resident and not a transfer.

You are either that dumb or just dense as hell.

[Stinger17]

10 minutes ago, Pucks11 said:

The 1 team that posted claimed "to be after them" beat them this season. What did they have to gain? The guy they claimed from that team to turn him in kid plays the same position at their club team.

Montour supposedly couldn't find but 1 goalie for the season between JV and V but have a total of 4 listed between to 2 for the season ???

I wasn't specific to a team or individual(s), but reading thru this thread it's pretty clear that some people have an ax to grind with Montour hockey (board, coaches and parents) that goes beyond this issue of eligilibilty.... I'm not sure how the number of goalies in their program has anything to do with this? They didn't have enough and now they do.

21 minutes ago, Pucks11 said:

 

Yes the address was clearly the billets which is why is raised the question how 2 kids with different last names were living at the same house and there was no transfer paperwork filed but just the basic resident paperwork.

 

Different names living in the same house should not raise a question in today's world. It's called divorce, never married, blended, multiple baby daddy's etc. That alone shouldn't raise an alarm.

[Flavio]

4 minutes ago, Pucks11 said:

You really can't comprehend simple sentences can you?

How was PIHL supposed to know they didn't file the proper paperwork at the beginning of the season when they listed the kid as a current resident and not a transfer.

You are either that dumb or just dense as hell.

Let me frame it for you this way… what is going to prevent this from happening again? What can PIHL mandate, under their umbrella, to avoid this issue moving forward? 
 

You’re the one who’s being obtuse. Answer my question. 

Edited February 27, 2023 by Flavio

[Pucks11]

1 minute ago, Stinger17 said:

I wasn't specific to a team or individual(s), but reading thru this thread it's pretty clear that some people have an ax to grind with Montour hockey (board, coaches and parents) that goes beyond this issue of eligilibilty.... I'm not sure how the number of goalies in their program has anything to do with this? They didn't have enough and now they do.

Different names living in the same house should not raise a question in today's world. It's called divorce, never married, blended, multiple baby daddy's etc. That alone shouldn't raise an alarm.

Montours argument at the beginning of the season was that they only had 1 total goalie to play for JV and V which is is why they NEEDED this kid so bad yet they somehow ended up with 4 playing. There were other schools able to pull off the whole season with 1 goalie but Montour just couldn't do it.

 

 

I see what you mean about blended families but it would still raise a question and with that excuse would be an easy answer.

[nemesis8679]

Who cares when they got caught, the fact is they did get caught. 

They're so-called "exhibit a" doesn't show anything, other than state they have one goalie between 2 teams, and ask Mucha if should they cut back to just having a varsity team or try to find another kid who plays that doesn't have a school team of his own and do a co-op (and what would be necessary to do that). Mucha looks to have replied that he talked to person A, and person A said Montour should talk to person B. And they could discuss these options ON THE PHONE. As in, it's not in writing. Nowhere is this kid or option mentioned in that correspondence they included. I'll assume this was the "evidence" brought forth at the PIHL hearing, and PIHL told them to get bent. Otherwise if they had any evidence it would be in this court document, and not this lame excuse for evidence. If Mucha did okay it- disregarding that it's not his responsibility but the responsibility of the rules interpreter- where's the proof that whatever they told him was actually the whole truth? 

And the "signed roster" that certifies everything is A-OK was signed by the SCHOOL A.D., who like most school A.D.'s probably pays as much attention to what the hockey team is doing as they do to what the homecoming parade committee is doing. Probably less. He signed whatever the board put in front of him. All that paper says is the player requirements  required BY THE SCHOOL have been met. There is nothing on there that says one word about PIHL requirements, nor did anyone from PIHL sign that roster. 

 

Like I said before, I do feel bad for those kids. I doubt it was the players that put this scheme together. 

But I would feel bad for kids who missed the playoffs over a team cheating, too. 

[Pucks11]

2 minutes ago, Flavio said:

Let me frame it for you this way… what is going to prevent this from happening again? What can PIHL mandate, under their umbrella, to avoid this issue moving forward? 
 

You’re the one who’s being obtuse. Answer my question. 

Nothing will prevent it from happening unless the punishment becomes harsher maybe. Don't just take wins away and fine them, suspend the program for a year. From reading posts on here other organizations are the reason these papers were created in the first place. PIHL is a non profit so how many people can they really hire to go over thousands of kids paperwork in a timely manor? I am sure people volunteer to help but that only goes so far.  Apparently this is something that NEEDS to be addressed again since another school try to pull this stunt off after they implemented new rules.

[nemesis8679]

They're also arguing that this transfer stuff doesn't count because he was middle school going to high school. Where in the rules do they differentiate that? 

They pretty much just made that up on their own. 

[zam]

"Nobody cares this much about high school hockey, he just wanted to play some games with his classmates and make some friends."

Seems like someone cares enough to file 50 pages motion and go to court with a team of lawyers. Just sayin.

[Stackthepads]

14 minutes ago, zam said:

"Nobody cares this much about high school hockey, he just wanted to play some games with his classmates and make some friends."

Seems like someone cares enough to file 50 pages motion and go to court with a team of lawyers. Just sayin.

I promise you it wasn’t the billet kid.  

[LGP13]

12 hours ago, Jkersman01 said:

As you guessed I have no idea what they have. But like Pucks said, I made a rather fundamental assumption that if PIHL had paperwork that approved this player, we wouldn’t have gotten to where we are now, and that the hearings would have produced this and montour would be just fine.  If PIHL does have such paperwork, wow, this is an even bigger mess and Montour is entirely a victim. I put the odds of that rather low, though, based on getting to where we are now.

I don’t know that group personally, but have practiced law for a while. When representing a plaintiff in a civil suit, especially such as here were the fee is presumably either pro bono or hourly (so it’s not tied to percentages of damages), attorneys take cases for any number of reasons. I think it is unfair that just because what might very well be a reputable firm took this case, means there is a proverbial smoking gun. 

Yes, but what would be PIHL's angle? What or why could they possibly want to screw Montour out of playing in the playoffs? They really have no reason to DQ Montour unless they believe that the rules of their organization that all these teams play in weren't followed, and the only reason they would do that is to protect the other teams/kids that play in their organization from getting cheated somehow.

 

All this said I do feel bad for the kids at Montour. Adults ruining it for kids... Apparently, they have a strong team. Would they still have to of had to move up a division to AA if all the paperwork was correct and the kid was approved to play? Curious how they would have done playing all season up a division if they had to. If they wouldn't have had to and could have stayed at A with the kid on the team and the only issue here is the paperwork that wasn't properly done... then wow. Really feel bad for the kids.

[zam]

But they "let him step on the ice" argument!

How about the "follow the rules" argument??? It's up to the team to know and follow the rules. It's the job of PIHL to enforce the rules.  It doesn't matter when the rules are broken or when you are caught.  There are plenty of instances in sports when awards and championships are vacated afterwards because they later found rules had been broken. Saying "we would have won anyway" doesn't work.

One would think the team manager should be somewhat familiar with the rules. At some point she would have came across the rule that says a player must live with their parents in the district.  And then think "hmm I got a kid living in my house that isn't mine, and their parents are in Ohio" 

I still think that kid should be paying tuition, not really fair the taxpayers of the school district are paying for someone living here part time without parents residing, working or paying taxes here. But that's a different issue.

Btw. Also looks like they handed the coach another one game suspension for failng to scratch names off a list and count to 20.  So they are either incompetent, don't follow rules, don't pay attention to rules, or don't think rules pertain to them.

[Saucey]

I don't understand the argument of....we tried to pull a fast one, PIHL didn't catch it, kid played all season, so thus, there should be no foul, either. I do understand....we thought we were good because we talked to someone in PIHL. But the lack of documentation to support that seems to be an issue. PIHL enforces roster violations. They do. And coaches looking for an edge look for them and report them. And guess what....your verbal conversation with an incorrect application of the rule is likely not going to override the rule. But the cop told me it was okay to run the red light...

What do you really want people to do? These rules are in place because clearly, people trying to get kids on rosters has been a problem in the past. Shoot, my beer league even has these rules because people really value winning in our society, even when the event or game means.... nothing. The amount of rules professional leagues have regarding rosters is mind boggling.

Every time there is a roster violation, kids are hurt. They don't set the roster, so it is always a nasty repercussion for them.  That is a terrible reason not to enforce them, because then you essentially invalidate roster rules. It's also not fair to kids to not enforce them. This is exactly why the rules exist in the first place, to prevent unfairness in setting teams.

In my experience, PIHL enforces roster violations. So you need to dot your Is and cross your Ts. If your program doesn't, made a mistake...it sucks. But it's the rule.

WE want our kids to see that there are repercussions for rule violations, don't we?

 

[Stackthepads]

26 minutes ago, zam said:

But they "let him step on the ice" argument!

How about the "follow the rules" argument??? It's up to the team to know and follow the rules. It's the job of PIHL to enforce the rules.  It doesn't matter when the rules are broken or when you are caught.  There are plenty of instances in sports when awards and championships are vacated afterwards because they later found rules had been broken. Saying "we would have won anyway" doesn't work.

One would think the team manager should be somewhat familiar with the rules. At some point she would have came across the rule that says a player must live with their parents in the district.  And then think "hmm I got a kid living in my house that isn't mine, and their parents are in Ohio" 

I still think that kid should be paying tuition, not really fair the taxpayers of the school district are paying for someone living here part time without parents residing, working or paying taxes here. But that's a different issue.

Btw. Also looks like they handed the coach another one game suspension for failng to scratch names off a list and count to 20.  So they are either incompetent, don't follow rules, don't pay attention to rules, or don't think rules pertain to them.

Zam bam thank you ma’am-

How do you know they failed to scratch a name and did not dress 21 players?  Insider??? 

 

Edited February 27, 2023 by Stackthepads
Spelling

[Ihearthockey]

Ok, so I'm going to do this again

The student is a billeted player, unless a court-appointed guardianship is in place between the player and the hostfamily. This does not pertain to foreign students who have been approved by USA Hockey

Is the student a billet, living with somebody other than his parents out of state for the purposes of playing hockey? YES/NO

Did the student's parents sign over guardianship to the billet family? YES/NO

Did Montour submit the paperwork to have this student treated as an exception to the Athletic Intent rule? YES/NO

Did PIHL approve the exception paperwork? YES/NO

Seems to me that the last two questions are what need to be clarified.  I would have to imagine that PIHL can still approve the roster if the paperwork wasn't filled out correctly because PIHL would not have known that the kid was a billet.  That would alleviate PIHL of any responsibility in the matter.  However, if the paperwork was correct, and PIHL did approve via some sort of documentation, then I would agree that PIHL has some culpability here.  We keep coming back to this darn paperwork don't we.  Where is it?

[Stackthepads]

Is it unfathomable to believe that this is possibly what went down:

Montour reaches out to Pihl to discuss said player eligibility via the old, outdated mode of communication- the telephone.  Explains situation in detail.  High ranking pihl offical or officials say that transfer eligibility does not apply to this situation for whatever reason.  Perhaps because he did not transfer high schools idk.  Montour says ok, thank you very much, have a nice day.  Should montour have said “send me an email to confirm”?  Before you say yes:

If at your job you are allotted a 30 min lunch break and you ask your boss, “is it ok if I take an hour for lunch today, my father is visiting from San Diego”?  He replies “sure”.  Do you ask “can you send me an email to confirm”?

Suppose you are a college student and you have an unfortunate death in the family and the service is scheduled at the same time as your chemistry exam.  You ask your professor after class if he can reschedule your exam explaining the situation.   He says “sure, sorry for your loss”.  Do you then reply “please send me an email”?  
 

Perhaps there even is an email.  Just saying, to assume that there were definitely ill-intentions involved is close-minded.  

[Ynot02]

13 minutes ago, Stackthepads said:

Is it unfathomable to believe that this is possibly what went down:

Montour reaches out to Pihl to discuss said player eligibility via the old, outdated mode of communication- the telephone.  Explains situation in detail.  High ranking pihl offical or officials say that transfer eligibility does not apply to this situation for whatever reason.  Perhaps because he did not transfer high schools idk.  Montour says ok, thank you very much, have a nice day.  Should montour have said “send me an email to confirm”?  Before you say yes:

If at your job you are allotted a 30 min lunch break and you ask your boss, “is it ok if I take an hour for lunch today, my father is visiting from San Diego”?  He replies “sure”.  Do you ask “can you send me an email to confirm”?

Suppose you are a college student and you have an unfortunate death in the family and the service is scheduled at the same time as your chemistry exam.  You ask your professor after class if he can reschedule your exam explaining the situation.   He says “sure, sorry for your loss”.  Do you then reply “please send me an email”?  
 

Perhaps there even is an email.  Just saying, to assume that there were definitely ill-intentions involved is close-minded.  

No, since you are requesting the exception, YOU send the email with a summary of the conversation so you have it in writing. That burden is not on the person who granted the exception.

[Stackthepads]

1 minute ago, Ynot02 said:

No, since you are requesting the exception, YOU send the email with a summary of the conversation so you have it in writing. That burden is not on the person who granted the exception.

So you would do it for the other situations?

[Spear and Magic Helmet]

Just now, Stackthepads said:

So you would do it for the other situations?

Honestly, yes, I would. Anything that could come back to bite me, I would have.

Part of this is probably because I'm old and cynical, but I would have assumed that people would have questioned this kid's eligibility from the get-go. Just knowing how a lot of people are, I would have done the CYA.

[Pucks11]

1 hour ago, Ihearthockey said:

Ok, so I'm going to do this again

The student is a billeted player, unless a court-appointed guardianship is in place between the player and the hostfamily. This does not pertain to foreign students who have been approved by USA Hockey

Is the student a billet, living with somebody other than his parents out of state for the purposes of playing hockey? YES/NO

Did the student's parents sign over guardianship to the billet family? YES/NO

Did Montour submit the paperwork to have this student treated as an exception to the Athletic Intent rule? YES/NO

Did PIHL approve the exception paperwork? YES/NO

Seems to me that the last two questions are what need to be clarified.  I would have to imagine that PIHL can still approve the roster if the paperwork wasn't filled out correctly because PIHL would not have known that the kid was a billet.  That would alleviate PIHL of any responsibility in the matter.  However, if the paperwork was correct, and PIHL did approve via some sort of documentation, then I would agree that PIHL has some culpability here.  We keep coming back to this darn paperwork don't we.  Where is it?

The answer is NO to all 4 questions. They listed the kid as a Montour resident like he has lived there his entire life.