Proposed PAHL rule

[Jkersman01]

Interesting the impact this will have… I get this impacts only a small number of people but wonder why they felt it so important to address it. Are they really concerned about getting sued here? Curious if anyone has any context on this. 

[Corsi]

39 minutes ago, Jkersman01 said:

Interesting the impact this will have… I get this impacts only a small number of people but wonder why they felt it so important to address it. Are they really concerned about getting sued here? Curious if anyone has any context on this. 

"Are they really concerned about getting sued here"...  that should answer your question about the context, of course the fear is that they would get sued.

[Jkersman01]

17 minutes ago, Corsi said:

"Are they really concerned about getting sued here"...  that should answer your question about the context, of course the fear is that they would get sued.

I get that was the stated rationale. My question was a little deeper than that. Maybe phrased this way - were there really rumblings that some 9,10, 11 year old boy families were so irate that they couldn't play both PPE/Vengeance and PAHL, saw that girls could do it, and were threatening to sue over it essentially claiming girls get preferential treatment? On top of it all, I believe PPE prohibits boys from playing on another team anyway, so not sure that would be contributing to this. Just seeing if anyone knows if there is more to it than what is stated as the rationale.

 

In some ways, perhaps this could open them up at the minimum for bad press (i.e. news story that local hockey organization restricting eligibility of girls), but potentially to litigation the other way. To be clear, I don't think the latter would happen. 

 

Just seems strange to me at a time when PAHL probably has the most "competition" it has ever had, a topic of discussion is apparently focused on prohibiting a good bit of girls from being eligible to play. 

[James Gatz]

There are two proposed rule changes related to roster limitations girls.  Both cite litigation fears as a rationale for the rule change.  This is the second.

 

[sadday4hockey]

Girls hockey in Pittsburgh and the District is in a far worse place than boys if you can believe that.

One of the issues is this, the PPE program with their magical powers are somehow able to field not just one, but two "Tier 1" teams at both 12U and 10U.

Yet as the players get older, no one else in Western PA is allowed to field a Tier 1 Girls program by declaration of the MidAm district.

So by logic, there aren't enough of these players being developed properly to continue at the Tier 1 level past 12U..................................................... ORRRRRRRRRR

There are some 12U and 10U families that have been sold a large dose of Kool-aid for their 4 years in the program.

[Jkersman01]

2 hours ago, James Gatz said:

There are two proposed rule changes related to roster limitations girls.  Both cite litigation fears as a rationale for the rule change.  This is the second.

 

Interesting. I fear sometimes when we oversimplify things we miss a legitimate rooted difference. Being the same isn’t being equitable in many cases.  The state of girls hockey and boys hockey is different. I wish they’d acknowledge that. 

[Jkersman01]

7 hours ago, sadday4hockey said:

So by logic, there aren't enough of these players being developed properly to continue at the Tier 1 level past 12U..................................................... ORRRRRRRRRR

There are some 12U and 10U families that have been sold a large dose of Kool-aid for their 4 years in the program.

What’s wrong with the 10u and 12u black team families at PPE doing what they’re doing? 4 years playing a combo of local games that they pick against generally similar competition and adding to it about 6 regional tournaments against other girls teams? Would you rather put these girls in the girls ‘PAHL pen’ where there are 4 teams in a division and 2 of them can barely skate? And play each other like 4 times and call it a season…?

[Ron Shock]

I agree with the Teir one rule.

I disagree with the double rostering on two girls teams. Some organizations would not be able to field some teams if they could not have girls on two teams. 

[YardSale]

9 hours ago, Jkersman01 said:

What’s wrong with the 10u and 12u black team families at PPE doing what they’re doing? 4 years playing a combo of local games that they pick against generally similar competition and adding to it about 6 regional tournaments against other girls teams? Would you rather put these girls in the girls ‘PAHL pen’ where there are 4 teams in a division and 2 of them can barely skate? And play each other like 4 times and call it a season…?

I think the idea is to let them play coed through 12U

[Rewster]

21 hours ago, James Gatz said:

There are two proposed rule changes related to roster limitations girls.  Both cite litigation fears as a rationale for the rule change.  This is the second.

 

 

I’m happy to see that they appear to be planning to do a complete review of the current rules—with the antiquated rules theoretically being updated/modernized and the wording to be revised accordingly for clarity and to reduce misunderstanding. At least, I interpreted it as such. 

In my opinion, the very first step in solving a problem…is to acknowledge that there “may/might” be a problem. 

The troublesome thing that is apparent to me is that they’re still living in their fears and are motivated by reactionary thinking.

But, I am encouraged by the direction that they’re taking with their actions.

Edited February 27 by Rewster

[Zarg]

2 hours ago, YardSale said:

I think the idea is to let them play coed through 12U

If you want to drive young girls away from hockey, this is a great mentality.

Just let them play coed and it will be an "equal" playing field for all. 

Right now you have 8 PAHL organizations fielding 20 girls only teams from 10U thru 19U (with a 19U division that includes a 16U team).

I know a lot of those organizations have to double roster kids on both the 12U and 14U teams in order to fill out entire rosters, so you can have *barely* enough teams to keep the divisions running. The rule change wording even acknowledges "this will likely be a step backwards in a few places and therefore could cost us a small number of girls teams." The rule about double rostering for girls to play on two teams is somewhat unfortunate necessity. It is not like these girls are taking roster spots away from other girls on those teams, there are just not enough players to go around. 

I suspect another onus for these proposed rule changes is parents on birth year PAHL teams being upset about talented girls who play 10U and 12U Pens Elite girls while also playing on the AA coed teams for the PAHL. Sometimes they may have to pick and choose which team they play for on a tournament or for a certain weekend, and that gets the other parents upset.

Every person is different, but most girls I've seen and known playing hockey seem to thrive on the competition playing with and against the boys at their age plus enjoy the comradery and sense of fitting in with their girls teams as well. Limiting their choices and number of teams that organizations are even able to field for them as options to satisfy some legal sense of obligation of gender equality really goes against the mission and objective of making hockey fun, fair, and accessible to as many young people who want to participate as possible.

If any of you have any influence on the organizations or people in organizations voting on these proposed rules, if you care about the present and future of girls hockey in the region, I would strongly urge you to vote "no" on these changes. 

[Wes]

"Gender Equality Issue..." 😵‍💫

So glad I'm not dealing with this bullcrap anymore.  The PAHL and Midam are run by inbred stooges.

[ice is cold]

10 hours ago, Wes said:

"Gender Equality Issue..." 😵‍💫

So glad I'm not dealing with this bullcrap anymore.  The PAHL and Midam are run by inbred stooges.

Our family is out of the game as it pertains to pahl, pihl and anything youth hockey. My only 2 cents is my sons pahl team when he was 14u had a female player (she was very good) but missed half of the pahl co-ed games due to conflicts with her girls team or the other 3rd (and 4th) team she was on. At one point the conflict was them playing each other. I feel that is an issue. A pahl teammate missing games/practice for a  pihl conflict is ok and  acceptable. But to miss because of pahl or similar conflicts I see an issue...Mind you this was years ago, I can imagine it happens more now. Just something to think about..... Boys only miss for pihl hockey conflicts... So ultimately it hurts the team (s) they may be multi rostered on.... 

[Wes]

9 hours ago, ice is cold said:

Our family is out of the game as it pertains to pahl, pihl and anything youth hockey. My only 2 cents is my sons pahl team when he was 14u had a female player (she was very good) but missed half of the pahl co-ed games due to conflicts with her girls team or the other 3rd (and 4th) team she was on. At one point the conflict was them playing each other. I feel that is an issue. A pahl teammate missing games/practice for a  pihl conflict is ok and  acceptable. But to miss because of pahl or similar conflicts I see an issue...Mind you this was years ago, I can imagine it happens more now. Just something to think about..... Boys only miss for pihl hockey conflicts... So ultimately it hurts the team (s) they may be multi rostered on.... 

Our daughter was in this situation.  We told the PAHL and PIHL coaches that the AAA team was her priority.  They didn't have a problem...  But scenarios from coach to coach would vary.

But I get it that everyone is worried about lawsuits, etc.

 

[James Gatz]

On 2/26/2024 at 11:52 PM, Ron Shock said:

I agree with the Teir one rule.

I disagree with the double rostering on two girls teams. Some organizations would not be able to field some teams if they could not have girls on two teams. 

One way to mitigate the double rostering litigation risk without gutting organizations ability to field multiple girls division teams would be to make all players eligible to double-roster under the old rule for girls?  The old rule includes the limitation that "A maximum of five (5) girls may be double rostered between girls’ teams.  Double rostering under this rule must be within a single association and may not cross over to other association girls’ teams."  The old rule says that double rostering within the girls division, the second team must be in a different division.  Remove the gender limits and allow organizations 5 double-roster spots to be use however they want.  

So, if an associated is limited to just 5 double-rosterings, there won't be a deluge of boys doubling up.  The organizations would have to chose how to use those spots.  Most would likely be used by girls in those organizations fielding girls teams.  Under this tweak, girls would lose the ability to roster on both a youth and girls team within an age group, but they could still play up an age group.  

This approach would mitigate the litigation risk, while still allowing 5 girls to double roster.  The expense would be that girls could no longer play co-ed at their age group and on a girls team.  A second cost would be that some organizations might chose to use their 5 spots to allow their favorite boys to double-roster and play up.  

[Jkersman01]

11 hours ago, ice is cold said:

A pahl teammate missing games/practice for a  pihl conflict is ok and  acceptable. But to miss because of pahl or similar conflicts I see an issue...

I'm just curious as to the rationale here. Not trying to be confrontational, just understand. Why is it acceptable for a player to miss a PAHL game/practice for PIHL, but not acceptable for a girl to miss a game for a girls team for example? I know you didn't say "girl" to be clear, but I think that's the root of the issue here with this rule that's causing some concern. The big argument against this from the girls side is that it is OK for boys to play on a PIHL team (non-PAHL) as their second team, but not OK for a girl to play on a girls team (non-PAHL) as her second team.

[Corsi]

15 minutes ago, Jkersman01 said:

I'm just curious as to the rationale here. Not trying to be confrontational, just understand. Why is it acceptable for a player to miss a PAHL game/practice for PIHL, but not acceptable for a girl to miss a game for a girls team for example? I know you didn't say "girl" to be clear, but I think that's the root of the issue here with this rule that's causing some concern. The big argument against this from the girls side is that it is OK for boys to play on a PIHL team (non-PAHL) as their second team, but not OK for a girl to play on a girls team (non-PAHL) as her second team.

PAHL vs. PIHL is probably a bad example because PIHL plays during the week, while PAHL is on weekends.  Missing PAHL practices for PIHL games (during the week) has traditionally been where there's a conflict.  Beyond that it is if there's a PIHL game on a Thursday night and the PAHL team is leaving for an out-of-town tournament that requires them to leave on Thursday.  The issue that is being raised here is playing on multiple teams that both play the vast majority of games on weekends, thus leading to conflicts.

[ice is cold]

1 hour ago, Jkersman01 said:

I'm just curious as to the rationale here. Not trying to be confrontational, just understand. Why is it acceptable for a player to miss a PAHL game/practice for PIHL, but not acceptable for a girl to miss a game for a girls team for example? I know you didn't say "girl" to be clear, but I think that's the root of the issue here with this rule that's causing some concern. The big argument against this from the girls side is that it is OK for boys to play on a PIHL team (non-PAHL) as their second team, but not OK for a girl to play on a girls team (non-PAHL) as her second team.

It seems like a simple equation to me. Using pahl was a bad term, I should have used amateur. 

Pihl and amateur fall into separate "conferences" not sure the best word to use there and players can play in both. Amateur and school.

Missing an amateur game for an amateur  game shouldn't happen.  Just like you can't miss a pihl game for a pihl game, as you can only play on one pihl team 🤷🤦🤔

Seems simplistic to me. Everyone can play amateur and pihl. That should be the only hockey conflicts. 

Edited February 28 by ice is cold

[Jkersman01]

41 minutes ago, ice is cold said:

 

Seems simplistic to me. Everyone can play amateur and pihl. That should be the only hockey conflicts. 

I see your point. Let me throw this back out there then. Boys have a legitimate option to play on two teams. PIHL and amateur. Let’s make the rules ‘equal’ and say girls have those same options. Is playing PIHL for girls a legitimate option when compared to the non-PIHL girls teams? I can tell you absolute horror stories of girls playing on PIHL teams with the boys. One of which made the news 2 years ago with the Mars goalie. It might look ‘equal’ on paper, but PIHL isn’t a legitimate option for girls unfortunately. So this rule leaves boys with two options and girls with one. 

Everyone seems to think it’s completely fine for boys to prioritize PIHL over PAHL, but girls can’t prioritize their non-PAHL girls team over PAHL?

I should note, she only missed 1 period of 1 PAHL game when she played both because of conflicts with PPE. And I should note this doesn’t apply to us now so I have no horse in this race. 

Edited February 28 by Jkersman01

[James Gatz]

36 minutes ago, Jkersman01 said:

Everyone seems to think it’s completely fine for boys to prioritize PIHL over PAHL, but girls can’t prioritize their non-PAHL girls team over PAHL?

 

Why should the PAHL care about how the athletes prioritize their time?  I can see why people might care at an organizational or team level, but what concern is it of the league?  If you buy my premise that the league shouldn't care, the next question is why are they trying to legislate this at all?  I get if organizations want to have some internal rules/expectations, they can, but the organizations also have some control over scheduling.  For the double-rostered, we are talking about a handful of players in each organization and the managers of the two effected teams should be able to coordinate scheduling.

For the other rule banning Tier 1 players from playing on PAHL, the devil is in the details of defining a Tier 1 team.  On some level it makes sense for PAHL to define itself as a B-AA league, so excluding true Tier 1 athletes, regardless of gender, makes sense.  Saying that the second 10 girls PPE team is a Tier 1 team, however, is not consistent with everyone's definition of Tier 1.  

[Jkersman01]

34 minutes ago, James Gatz said:

Saying that the second 10 girls PPE team is a Tier 1 team, however, is not consistent with everyone's definition of Tier 1.  

This is important and being ignored here by many. The 10U PPE black team this year was essentially playing an A minor gold schedule. The 3rd to bottom division in PAHL. Under this rule, those girls are considered Tier 1 and "too good" to play PAHL.

 

My daughter played on the 'gold' PPE girls team for 5 years. Our most competitive games were A major black (2nd highest). We'd play some AA games here and there but I'd say we won 1 out of 4 of those. Fairly competitive.

 

I'm guessing here, but probably 20% of the girls playing PAHL girls at the 10U level (maybe a bit less at 12U) also play on a PPE team. Many girls double roster in PAHL (10u and 12u, as has been said) to fill out teams. I wouldn't be surprised if this rule ended up causing PAHL to consider, if not go to, a model where 10/12u merge, and 14/16/19u merge. There already is one 16U team playing 19U. The skill discrepancy would be so bad it would make many girls frustrated and likely want to quit. 

My guess is the organizations that field girls teams don't like this proposed rule because it will destroy their girls programs. The orgs that don't probably either are (i) indifferent, (ii) against it, if one of these girls took a roster spot from one of their boys who is only a couple good bounces away from making the NHL, or (iii) against it because they're upset that they have a kid that plays on a legitimate Tier I boys team and can't play PAHL, but girls can so they're getting an unfair advantage and more ice time. If you think the third is ridiculous, it is not. I didn't make that up and I fear one organization is going to vote for the adoption of this rule based on that logic. 

Edited February 28 by Jkersman01

[Saucey]

Reading another forum regarding comments made by the PAHL rules' committee, it didn't sound as if there was a great understanding of the girls' landscape. There is no pending litigation, only a fear. 

There is a prevailing knee jerk reaction that is appealing in its simplicity. "It's not fair that boys can't play Tier I and on a PAHL team and girls can, that is not equal, so hence we are subject to liability." This goes to how a segment of society is viewing affirmative action outreaches in general.

This thought process ignores the reality of what it is to be female and try to play. Even Tier I girls teams struggle to find appropriate competition. There are not more than a team or two legit AA teams around here. So good female hockey players struggle to find appropriate competition to develop. Having teams made up of a wide range of age differences is frustrating to development.

Playing with boys helps that development, but as others said, also has a lot of drawbacks. Not every girl is going to want that.

I don't know what the solution is. Triple rostering is a terrible idea, because that does not help the team that comes in as the last choice for that player. Beer league minutes on youth sports teams because of lack of bodies also hurts development, but hey, there is a team out there!

I just don't get the sense that the people who are looking at making this actually knows what it is to be female and try to play around here or sufficiently care. What is new?

 

[Lifelongbender]

1 hour ago, Saucey said:

I just don't get the sense that the people who are looking at making this actually knows what it is to be female and try to play around here or sufficiently care. What is new?

I think this is absolutely true. You can see from the discussions on this forum that girls hockey is unimportant to many. And it's obvious to anyone who pays attention at any organization that, even at the orgs that really care to try to make girls hockey work, the girls are less than a second thought. It was only a year or two ago that basically every organization was giving their girls only one practice a week - at some orgs, every other week - and often they were on Sunday nights. Or late Friday night.

The reason for allowing girls to roster on an extra team is simple - to promote girls hockey in the region. And for many orgs the only way to make girls teams happen is to dual roster the maximum number of girls. The proposed rule justification says that it "could cost us a small number of girls teams". It surely will do that. What's hard to understand is why PAHL thinks that's not a big deal as implied by that wording. Of the 25-or-so organizations listed on PAHL's website, only 11 have even one girls team. And every season some teams fold while others arise, so that it's never possible to predict who will have a team or how many teams will be in a division. Because of the small number of teams, almost all girls divisions play reduced schedules - that is, the girls teams don't get the same 20 game seasons the boys teams do. The 19U division this season, for instance, had 12 game seasons. A girl who dual rosters on two girls teams won't end up playing 40 girls games on top of whatever coed schedule they have because girls teams normally don't get that many games and also because they probably won't get to every game for both girls teams either.

As for girls missing coed games, I've coached both girls teams and coed teams that had girls who missed games for their other team. As long as everyone is up front about it, that situation is what it is. Normally you are either prioritizing one of the teams over the other all the time, or you make a case-by-case call depending on the opponents and/or the importance of the game. It's not ideal, but it's something teams have been working with for a long time.

I'm not going to get into arguments about whether girls can or should play coed hockey at any level. I've long believed that girls should play coed at least through 12U because they get exposed to more players and more teams and there are more games in PAHL for coed teams as well as more tournament opportunities. I've known plenty of girls who handled 18U coed just fine. My experience is that as the players get older teams expect more and more from their players and I cannot imagine that most 16U/18U coed teams would tolerate players missing games because of their "other" team, whether the "other" team is a girls team or another coed team. So honestly I don't think that allowing girls to roster on both girls teams and boys teams is a big deal, because at the 16U and 18U levels girls tend to play for only one or the other anyway.

PAHL has to make a choice between parents complaining that their male player is getting discriminated against on the one hand and the viability of girls hockey as a thing on the other hand. Personally I think this whole argument is a waste of air because nobody is really hurt by the current rule. Regarding the Tier 1 rule, it's really not that significant. I agree with it in principle, but in practice I understand that the primary Tier 1 organization in our area generally tries to keep players from also playing on PAHL teams anyway.

[ice is cold]

On 2/28/2024 at 1:14 PM, Jkersman01 said:

I see your point. Let me throw this back out there then. Boys have a legitimate option to play on two teams. PIHL and amateur. Let’s make the rules ‘equal’ and say girls have those same options. Is playing PIHL for girls a legitimate option when compared to the non-PIHL girls teams? I can tell you absolute horror stories of girls playing on PIHL teams with the boys. One of which made the news 2 years ago with the Mars goalie. It might look ‘equal’ on paper, but PIHL isn’t a legitimate option for girls unfortunately. So this rule leaves boys with two options and girls with one. 

Everyone seems to think it’s completely fine for boys to prioritize PIHL over PAHL, but girls can’t prioritize their non-PAHL girls team over PAHL?

I should note, she only missed 1 period of 1 PAHL game when she played both because of conflicts with PPE. And I should note this doesn’t apply to us now so I have no horse in this race. 

What happened to that goalie was awful, and 100% should never happen. But if you think all players regardless of sex don't deal with the BS of horribly raised children, you live in a bubble. Racist comments are all over the ice (and any sport), as well as derogatory comments to all players regardless of race, sex, etc.  until people start raising their kids correctly and ramifications are handed out, some kids will just continue (ill lump parents in their too)

I'm not downgrading anything, but by that statement you are saying any demographic that doesn't fit what you perceive as a hockey demographic should have their own team and league to not deal with poorly raised players and parents. 🤔 I thought we were all trying to go the other direction.... 

[Jkersman01]

1 hour ago, ice is cold said:

What happened to that goalie was awful, and 100% should never happen. But if you think all players regardless of sex don't deal with the BS of horribly raised children, you live in a bubble. Racist comments are all over the ice (and any sport), as well as derogatory comments to all players regardless of race, sex, etc.  until people start raising their kids correctly and ramifications are handed out, some kids will just continue (ill lump parents in their too)

I'm not downgrading anything, but by that statement you are saying any demographic that doesn't fit what you perceive as a hockey demographic should have their own team and league to not deal with poorly raised players and parents. 🤔 I thought we were all trying to go the other direction.... 

I disagree vehemently with this logic but let’s say you’re exactly right. Make PAHL and PIHL the options for girls. Now it’s equal. How many PAHL girls have a legitimate shot at making a high school team? Remember the top girls aren’t playing PAHL now. I’d say very few especially at decent sized schools. Now girls make up less than 1% of the PIHL players- is that really a second option? You’re making the second option an option the girls are by and large not going to be able to actually have practically speaking.
 

Under this rule, like Bender said, a PAHL girl is now playing a 12 game PAHL season if she’s lucky (assuming  PAHL girls teams don’t crumble under this rule which some certainly will) and can’t crack a high school team. Practice once a week if she’s lucky on Saturday night. A boy is playing 25ish games for PAHL, regular practices, plus a full PIHL schedule, regular practices. 
 

Rules are now equal. Are they equitable?

Edited March 1 by Jkersman01