Jump to content

Midam/USA hockey decision on hockey


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, sadday4hockey said:

Just stay home. Forever. Shrivel up and.......... well, you know.

Hey don't get me wrong. I think early on we needed to take some steps to get our arms wrapped around this thing. But you can't declare a pandemic for years. And control who is open and who isn't.  The business owners listed have a case for why is a big box store more essential than them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, sadday4hockey said:

Suicides are up.

Drug use and overdose deaths are up.

Mental health issues are up. Way up.

You know why? Because Americans DO NOT want to live the way the f@#$ing liberals want us to.

Quinlan, move to Cuba or Venezuela now. You are not going to like what happens in the next few weeks/months

 

I remember watching Trump step on his tongue. Saying he had "total control" over the states. Turns out constitutionally he was wrong. All he could do was offer support to the states. And in dem states they said "no thanks."  He could only sit back and watch. And the reality of it all it actually worked out better for him. He never had to determine who was essential and who wasn't. Never evoked marshall law by keeping people locked up. The governors did that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, HockeyDad23 said:

I guess MidAm is content on sitting back with no guidance on how to pay hockey. Although I'm not a fan of the mask wearing during play in MI, at least it is clear guidance to resume playing.  We're stalled out at 25 for indoors which is still bizarre and arbitrary.

Here is another question - if we start the season with some weird format is everyone ok if we were to be able to switch halfway through to a different format?  Could make for some interesting arguments. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Quinlan2020 said:

Many governors have imposed similar restrictions & closures. Some just waited until the cases & deaths were high enough so they could say it was more justified. There is no way to know for sure when the right time is to impose such restrictions, but by saying they are unlawful, you are basically accusing every governor of a crime. 

There isn't any kind of a useful point anywhere in here at all. I'll just say this: saying that a governor undertook an unconstitutional action is not accusing them of a crime. In this context, it is that the constitutionally designed mechanism of review of his actions was performed. "Everyone else is doing it" is not a credible defense in my house with my kids, much less in a courtroom.

You said that there is no way to know for sure when the right time is to impose such restrictions. There may a scientific/popular/political answer to that question (though I do not believe that a consensus about restrictions exists on that question in any of the three arenas), but at least according to this particular federal judge there is no such time for a governor to impose them unilaterally. If what others are posting on here about what's in the decision is accurate, he's saying that the restrictions themselves violate the Constitutional rights of the citizens.

  • Like 1
  • Fist Bump 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, aaaahockey said:

Here is another question - if we start the season with some weird format is everyone ok if we were to be able to switch halfway through to a different format?  Could make for some interesting arguments. 

I don't want to be picky. Part of me says play the game the right way or not at all. The other part of me wants to be appreciative for what we have if it is just something. I guess a third party of me says is this stuff all getting arbitrary in an effort to be able to just say "we're doing something"  or "it's in our plan."  I've heard, as you all have too, things that just don't make sense.  Trick treat might have candy sitting out. So you get it yourself versus handing it out. Does that make sense when kids will be running around the neighborhoods anyways reaching in to bowls with snotty hands? Or schools shut down on Wed for a cleanse of the whole building and then Thurs a new group of kids come in. But the teacher is still the common denominator day to day. And does the virus live beyond 24 hours on surfaces that schools even need to deep clean? I'm rambling.

  • 100 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, aaaahockey said:

Here is another question - if we start the season with some weird format is everyone ok if we were to be able to switch halfway through to a different format?  Could make for some interesting arguments. 

I understand why you asked this, but I can't imagine anyone wanting to keep playing with 9 players on a bench and halves instead of periods for an entire season when the option of playing normally is open. 

If what you were hinting at is the question of how the games played under the weird rules will be counted with respect to team record and player statistics, that's a very interesting question, and I agree that there will be arguments aplenty on that one should the situation present itself.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Lifelongbender said:

I understand why you asked this, but I can't imagine anyone wanting to keep playing with 9 players on a bench and halves instead of periods for an entire season when the option of playing normally is open. 

If what you were hinting at is the question of how the games played under the weird rules will be counted with respect to team record and player statistics, that's a very interesting question, and I agree that there will be arguments aplenty on that one should the situation present itself.

What about rinks that do not comply with 25 rule?  I could argue as a coach we went to rinks that let us play the game the right way and wont 12 games. Team B had strict requirements at their arena and got smoked all year because they couldn't play the game the right way. Lots of opportunities to say "but hey they didn't have to do it...."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Danner27 said:

Everyone is forgetting these mandates were put in place so the hospital capacity would not get overloaded. 

I remember LOL. And I think the judge's point was in PA, there never was or is a play to go back to normal. It is open ended. Seems open ended was OK for a bit. But now no other branches of our government are brought back in to the process of law and mandate setting. It rests with the governor and his panel. Whom remain unnamed. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, HockeyDad23 said:

What about rinks that do not comply with 25 rule?  I could argue as a coach we went to rinks that let us play the game the right way and wont 12 games. Team B had strict requirements at their arena and got smoked all year because they couldn't play the game the right way. Lots of opportunities to say "but hey they didn't have to do it...."

Yes, that makes sense. I think we are thinking the same way here. It's a good set of questions. And they'd make for some AWESOME barguments.

I can tell you this, though - as a coach, when they allow us to go to full benches and normal hockey, I'll agree at that time no matter what.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Quinlan2020 said:

And hospital capacity did not get overloaded so, perhaps, they worked.

Perhaps. We can never know, because we have no frame of reference for the inverse outcome.

If the restrictions had lasted only long enough to get in front of hospital capacity, it's worth noting, they would never have been tested in court at all.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, HockeyDad23 said:

What about rinks that do not comply with 25 rule?  I could argue as a coach we went to rinks that let us play the game the right way and wont 12 games. Team B had strict requirements at their arena and got smoked all year because they couldn't play the game the right way. Lots of opportunities to say "but hey they didn't have to do it...."

18 players vs 9 on bench more than likely has ZERO to do with the spread of covid. 9 other kids are sitting in a locker room together for an extended period of time. 
 

if a kid has covid, we are to believe the current science, sitting 9 kids in the locker room vs 9 kids constantly moving away from each other on the bench, you can clearly see which scenario has a greater rate of transmission. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BeaverFalls said:

Lesson learned:  25 was never going to change. Hockey was never going to happen. 

To this day with regards to the 25, we have no goal or milestone where someone.....the science...the data will tell us when we can increase this. I mean that in all seriousness. Unless I missed it. When with PA for example say to its constituents, we want to see cases fall below X. Or deaths are too high. What is our metric for easing anything?  And I think that is the judges mind set when the Chief of Staff said we want Pennsylvanians to get used to the "new normal."  He was like HUH? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Danner27 said:

18 players vs 9 on bench more than likely has ZERO to do with the spread of covid. 9 other kids are sitting in a locker room together for an extended period of time. 
 

if a kid has covid, we are to believe the current science, sitting 9 kids in the locker room vs 9 kids constantly moving away from each other on the bench, you can clearly see which scenario has a greater rate of transmission. 

Amen

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, hockeyisgreat said:

According to the Pittsburgh Business Times, lawyers argue that, barring a stay, the indoor and outdoor gathering limits can’t be enforced.

If this is truly the case, I'm happy that we don't have to wait around for a bill that actually relaxes restrictions on indoor youth sports to pass the legislature, get vetoed on the last day Wolf can wait to veto, and then go back for an override vote that it may or may not pass. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lifelongbender said:

Perhaps. We can never know, because we have no frame of reference for the inverse outcome.

If the restrictions had lasted only long enough to get in front of hospital capacity, it's worth noting, they would never have been tested in court at all.

But the "green phase" was an attempt to ease back into normalcy. People perceived it as an opportunity to go and have all the fun they want as if the virus was gone. That is why we are where we are.

  • Are you sure? 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Quinlan2020 said:

But the "green phase" was an attempt to ease back into normalcy. People perceived it as an opportunity to go and have all the fun they want as if the virus was gone. That is why we are where we are.

@Quinlan2020 Then if that is the case the color code system was stupid. Like I said with setting goals. Society needs a goal to meet. If you give it to Americans they try. But we are still neanderthals and need simplicity. The green phase, anyone in their right mind would assume they are safe and free. You don't think anyone would go to the Gov website and read?  And here we are since June, in Green, easing in to normalcy. You blame society. I blame leadership.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Quinlan2020 said:

But the "green phase" was an attempt to ease back into normalcy. People perceived it as an opportunity to go and have all the fun they want as if the virus was gone. That is why we are where we are.

I totally understand why you wrote this, and there's even a part of me that agrees. I have told my players and their parents that if wearing a mask is the price we have to pay to play hockey, then they have to wear them, because it's not a steep price.

But it is also true that we are where we are because the Governor, for better or for worse, and with intentions either noble or otherwise, overstepped his bounds with the restrictions he imposed. Even if it is true that the measures he took were appropriate, they were extremely burdensome and unpopular, and at least one federal judge has found them to be unconstitutional. Had he taken less arbitrary steps that could be defended with some sort of analytical rigor (as opposed to just selecting 25 for all indoor sports regardless of court/rink/field size and facility size) he would have had a much less difficult time enforcing them, and defending them.

I don't think there would be 545 posts (as of this moment) in this thread if the number allowed at indoor sporting events had been as low as 50.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, HockeyDad23 said:

@Quinlan2020 Then if that is the case the color code system was stupid. Like I said with setting goals. Society needs a goal to meet. If you give it to Americans they try. But we are still neanderthals and need simplicity. The green phase, anyone in their right mind would assume they are safe and free. You don't think anyone would go to the Gov website and read?  And here we are since June, in Green, easing in to normalcy. You blame society. I blame leadership.

The color phased reopening was misguided. Too many interpreted it as green means go, period. Society & leadership are both to blame.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I think everyone on the thread, with regards to the 25 person limit for hockey, has no idea what it will take as far as science, data, or a metric for when the PA governor will say " you know what guys. you did it. You put in the work. You wore masks. You socially distanced. Congrats. We're gonna bump you up a bit."  

No one saw a metric or goal? Much less a time table. Again I'm asking because I have not. I stare at cases, rates, breakdowns by county daily. At this point it is all numbers with no goal in mind.

  • 100 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Lifelongbender said:

I totally understand why you wrote this, and there's even a part of me that agrees. I have told my players and their parents that if wearing a mask is the price we have to pay to play hockey, then they have to wear them, because it's not a steep price.

But it is also true that we are where we are because the Governor, for better or for worse, and with intentions either noble or otherwise, overstepped his bounds with the restrictions he imposed. Even if it is true that the measures he took were appropriate, they were extremely burdensome and unpopular, and at least one federal judge has found them to be unconstitutional. Had he taken less arbitrary steps that could be defended with some sort of analytical rigor (as opposed to just selecting 25 for all indoor sports regardless of court/rink/field size and facility size) he would have had a much less difficult time enforcing them, and defending them.

I don't think there would be 545 posts (as of this moment) in this thread if the number allowed at indoor sporting events had been as low as 50.

I get what you are saying and even though a lot of us don't agree on what should be done about all this, it seems logical to agree that this is too complicated for one to claim that they could do so much better in solving these problems. A lot of these government decisions do seem arbitrary on the surface. I would like to think that (right or wrong) a lot of thought and science went into them. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be constantly revisited and scrutinized. Hopefully, they are constantly looking to adapt based on the new data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...