Midam/USA hockey decision on hockey

[aaaahockey]

11 minutes ago, Scooby Doo said:

Its going to get real ugly financially for states like PA that did these illegal shutdowns... big lawsuits a comin'

I hope so. As bad as it's going to be for our taxes in the future, we need something like that to prevent this stuff from happening again in the future. 

[forbin]

41 minutes ago, Danner27 said:

Not that I don’t believe you, until we see rinks such as Warrendale & Rmu allow full play it doesn’t really matter. Both of those rinks are The ones holding up PAHL and PIHL. 

If I was a betting man I would bet that RMU will open up in a more "normal" sense rather quickly. Given that they have one of the biggest and most used facilities in the area, they have quite a lot to gain from this news, and even more to lose if they don't.  

I could be dead wrong though, I am a terrible gambler.

[hockeyisgreat]

6 hours ago, HockeyDad23 said:

I didn't say I was in another world. No reason to be an asshole.  I said a rink owner hypothetically could choose to keep the limit to 25 people and still abide by the Gov mandate because he/she thinks that is what they are supposed to do. I highly doubt they will put their business on the line and pull out the 66 page document and scream and yell "but I can have more than 25 it says it here.". Try to keep up big fella. Ask Siri to read it to you next time.

I don't see a privately owned rink anywhere abiding by the Governors mandate. Go look at live barn! Why would a rink owner care to limit to 25 people. No one! I repeat no one is enforcing the mandate. They would put their business on the line by telling people what to do with their ice time. The 25 is being enforced by PIHL & PAHL not the rink owners. Rink owners consider themselves a recreational facility.  I really don't appreciate the name calling. No need for that kind of talk on a public forum.

[Danner27]

41 minutes ago, hockeyisgreat said:

I don't see a privately owned rink anywhere abiding by the Governors mandate. Go look at live barn! Why would a rink owner care to limit to 25 people. No one! I repeat no one is enforcing the mandate. They would put their business on the line by telling people what to do with their ice time. The 25 is being enforced by PIHL & PAHL not the rink owners. Rink owners consider themselves a recreational facility.  I really don't appreciate the name calling. No need for that kind of talk on a public forum.

Incorrect in a way - yes PIHL & PAHL have some influence. There was a rumor  that PAHL recently got a varsity tournament shut down that was going to play “regular” hockey. With that said, Warrendale is holding strict to things along with rmu. 

[aaaahockey]

11 minutes ago, Danner27 said:

Incorrect in a way - yes PIHL & PAHL have some influence. There was a rumor  that PAHL recently got a varsity tournament shut down that was going to play “regular” hockey. With that said, Warrendale is holding strict to things along with rmu. 

Yes I guess it depends on your definition of private but almost all the rinks are holding to some sort of restriction. Seems like RMU, Baierl, and Shahas ymca are very strict.  But even other rinks are cautious about allowing other teams to come play even if they are bending the rules with parents for practices or private practices.  I'm not sure a single rink is "business as usual". 

[carroll81]

Update on DVHL plans, looks like we are going ahead with the 25 person limit:

DVHL has released their plan for season opening on 10/1 and added their Covid Protocol this afternoon

DVHL Return to Play

DVHL Covid Protocol

 

Edited September 16, 2020 by carroll81
added text

[aaaahockey]

9 minutes ago, carroll81 said:

Update on DVHL plans, looks like we are going ahead with the 25 person limit:

DVHL has released their plan for season opening on 10/1 and added their Covid Protocol this afternoon

DVHL Return to Play

DVHL Covid Protocol

 

Probably too soon to react to the court decision + the stuff I was asking earlier about what to do if the season switched mid season

[hockeyisgreat]

Wow, I guess I am seeing different things than you folks are seeing.  I just counted 30 kids on the rink not counting coaches and people in the stands at Baierl. That's one rink how many people were in the other rink? They are all under one roof, Strict interpretation of the 25 person rule would mean 25 total in the building.   Has anyone been in a situation where a rink owner told them they had too many people on the ice? Has a rink been shut down because of non compliance or a covid outbreak?  

[aaaahockey]

1 hour ago, hockeyisgreat said:

Wow, I guess I am seeing different things than you folks are seeing.  I just counted 30 kids on the rink not counting coaches and people in the stands at Baierl. That's one rink how many people were in the other rink? They are all under one roof, Strict interpretation of the 25 person rule would mean 25 total in the building.   Has anyone been in a situation where a rink owner told them they had too many people on the ice? Has a rink been shut down because of non compliance or a covid outbreak?  

Well the law is gone as of yesterday so good for them 

[powderfinger]

Baierl is letting teams share ice for practices only. They are supposed to put bumpers across center ice. There are even newly created dressing areas so teams can dress and enter the rink via different doors so they don't have to interact.

It does seem a bit odd but I credit Baierl with being creative and trying to allow more teams to get practices in.

Edited September 16, 2020 by powderfinger

[Lifelongbender]

16 hours ago, aaaahockey said:

I hope so. As bad as it's going to be for our taxes in the future, we need something like that to prevent this stuff from happening again in the future. 

Imagine how much it will cost the State to have shut down every highway construction project in the entire Commonwealth. I can't even guess but it'll be substantial. In the tens of millions is easily possible.

This is before the private business lawsuits that may come up. The financial fallout for the states and the federal government is going to be unfathomable.

Edited September 16, 2020 by Lifelongbender

[hockeyisgreat]

9 hours ago, powderfinger said:

Baierl is letting teams share ice for practices only. They are supposed to put bumpers across center ice. There are even newly created dressing areas so teams can dress and enter the rink via different doors so they don't have to interact.

It does seem a bit odd but I credit Baierl with being creative and trying to allow more teams to get practices in.

Is it Baierl that is letting them or is it North Pittsburgh who is being creative. I still contend that the Private Rink Owners do not care how you use the ice once you rent it as long as it doesn't go over their Recreational Use maximum.

[forbin]

20 minutes ago, hockeyisgreat said:

Is it Baierl that is letting them or is it North Pittsburgh who is being creative. I still contend that the Private Rink Owners do not care how you use the ice once you rent it as long as it doesn't go over their Recreational Use maximum.

Both of the situations are from first hand experience in the past week. My kid was on the ice.

-There were 28 players and 3 coaches on the ice during a private ice rental at Bairel. One half of the ice was being used by 2 coaches and 20 kids, the other half was a coach and 8 kids. No middle barrier. 

-There were 42 players and 6 coaches on the ice at RMU. This was split into two groups divided by barriers in the neutral zone. 21 kids and 3 coaches on one side and 20 kids and 3 coaches on the other.

I have no reason to believe that either rink is trying to dig their heels into the ground about moving forward with hockey as "normal" as possible like some other people on this forum seem to think. 

I don't think there's anyone involved in Western PA youth hockey that doesn't want to see 5v5 full rostered games as quickly as possible.

[hockeyisgreat]

3 minutes ago, forbin said:

Both of the situations are from first hand experience in the past week. My kid was on the ice.

-There were 28 players and 3 coaches on the ice during a private ice rental at Bairel. One half of the ice was being used by 2 coaches and 20 kids, the other half was a coach and 8 kids. No middle barrier. 

-There were 42 players and 6 coaches on the ice at RMU. This was split into two groups divided by barriers in the neutral zone. 21 kids and 3 coaches on one side and 20 kids and 3 coaches on the other.

I have no reason to believe that either rink is trying to dig their heels into the ground about moving forward with hockey as "normal" as possible like some other people on this forum seem to think. 

I don't think there's anyone involved in Western PA youth hockey that doesn't want to see 5v5 full rostered games as quickly as possible.

Exactly my point. I don't believe the rink ownership is going to dictate how you use the ice.  It is more of the fact that MidAm and USA Hockey won't sanction the games.  There are a lot of Tournament Companies that are providing insurance etc privately sanctioning tournaments. What's the need for USA Hockey if you can play these tournaments almost every weekend? How many teams actually qualify for MidAm playoffs?  That's why the Pens Elite are in a real bind because they can't get sanctioned games and it is killing their model and selling point.  I can't believe those parents are going to stay quiet much longer. I wonder if PAHL has looked into providing their own insurance for games?

[fafa fohi]

42 minutes ago, forbin said:

Both of the situations are from first hand experience in the past week. My kid was on the ice.

-There were 28 players and 3 coaches on the ice during a private ice rental at Bairel. One half of the ice was being used by 2 coaches and 20 kids, the other half was a coach and 8 kids. No middle barrier. 

-There were 42 players and 6 coaches on the ice at RMU. This was split into two groups divided by barriers in the neutral zone. 21 kids and 3 coaches on one side and 20 kids and 3 coaches on the other.

I have no reason to believe that either rink is trying to dig their heels into the ground about moving forward with hockey as "normal" as possible like some other people on this forum seem to think. 

I don't think there's anyone involved in Western PA youth hockey that doesn't want to see 5v5 full rostered games as quickly as possible.

Interesting you pointing out what you saw for a "private rental."  Is this different than what NP or the high schools such as NA or Seneca have been doing?  Are those teams sharing ice or having full ice practices to stay under the 25 person limit?  And if so why are more skaters being allowed for private rentals?

[forbin]

43 minutes ago, fafa fohi said:

Interesting you pointing out what you saw for a "private rental."  Is this different than what NP or the high schools such as NA or Seneca have been doing?  Are those teams sharing ice or having full ice practices to stay under the 25 person limit?  And if so why are more skaters being allowed for private rentals?

I am not sure, but this was a private rental with split ice between two well known coaches in the area. 

[Saucey]

2 hours ago, hockeyisgreat said:

Is it Baierl that is letting them or is it North Pittsburgh who is being creative. I still contend that the Private Rink Owners do not care how you use the ice once you rent it as long as it doesn't go over their Recreational Use maximum.

It's right on Bairel's website what the rules are. It's Bairel's policy. Click on facility rules. They follow USA hockey recommendations. So some rink owners care very much what people are doing on their sheets of ice.

[hockeyisgreat]

43 minutes ago, Saucey said:

It's right on Bairel's website what the rules are. It's Bairel's policy. Click on facility rules. They follow USA hockey recommendations. So some rink owners care very much what people are doing on their sheets of ice.

From Baierls rules:

• Separate events – (2) ½ ice practices can be held if the practices are separated by 2 sets of bumpers at least 3’ on each side of the center red line creating at least a 6’ unoccupied space between the 2 practices. Participants from either side are not permitted to cross over and should use a separate entrance and exit if possible.

So Baierl is saying it's OK to put 50 people on the ice for practice but you can only have 25 for games. That makes a lot of sense! Seems like they are making up their own rules.  And good for them. At least they are trying to be creative.

Another reason why this whole thing makes no sense to me.

[Eddie Shore]

20 hours ago, Scooby Doo said:

Its going to get real ugly financially for states like PA that did these illegal shutdowns... big lawsuits a comin'

I hope so.  I have kept detailed records and all correspondences.  I’ve joined as many groups / class actions etc.. that I can.  Hopefully some of them will pan out 

[HockeyDad23]

3 hours ago, forbin said:

Both of the situations are from first hand experience in the past week. My kid was on the ice.

-There were 28 players and 3 coaches on the ice during a private ice rental at Bairel. One half of the ice was being used by 2 coaches and 20 kids, the other half was a coach and 8 kids. No middle barrier. 

-There were 42 players and 6 coaches on the ice at RMU. This was split into two groups divided by barriers in the neutral zone. 21 kids and 3 coaches on one side and 20 kids and 3 coaches on the other.

I have no reason to believe that either rink is trying to dig their heels into the ground about moving forward with hockey as "normal" as possible like some other people on this forum seem to think. 

I don't think there's anyone involved in Western PA youth hockey that doesn't want to see 5v5 full rostered games as quickly as possible.

Yes in both situations both rinks are trying to drive the argument of 25 in a "gathering."  The legit language is no more than 25 indoors. Period. 

[hockeyisgreat]

1 hour ago, HockeyDad23 said:

Yes in both situations both rinks are trying to drive the argument of 25 in a "gathering."  The legit language is no more than 25 indoors. Period. 

Who is going to be the first to test it now that it has been deemed Unconstitutional? Why hasn't MidAm or Atlantic come out with a statement in regard to their position on this?  Everyone hopes Wolf will relax his position but it seems he is pretty stubborn. I would just like him to show us the research that supports his position.  Pa is ranked 9th in toughest Covid restrictions.

[HockeyDad23]

3 minutes ago, hockeyisgreat said:

Who is going to be the first to test it now that it has been deemed Unconstitutional? Why hasn't MidAm or Atlantic come out with a statement in regard to their position on this?  Everyone hopes Wolf will relax his position but it seems he is pretty stubborn. I would just like him to show us the research that supports his position.  Pa is ranked 9th in toughest Covid restrictions.

My thoughts is no one is going to test it. No one wants fear of being sued.  On the PIAA level with regards to fall sports I see some schools going out on a limb and having spectators and taking the ruling to heart. Others are sticking with the governors orders.

[miked]

2 hours ago, hockeyisgreat said:

So Baierl is saying it's OK to put 50 people on the ice for practice but you can only have 25 for games. That makes a lot of sense! Seems like they are making up their own rules.  And good for them. At least they are trying to be creative.

No, they are not making up anything. this has been discussed multiple times on this site. This is straight from the gov office. If you put an imaginary 6 foot barrier at center ice, you have created 2 indoor spaces, that can each hold 25 people. 

these rinks have lawyers that are researching and contacting officials to try to figure out what they can and can't do. there are floating interpretations of certain things but the basic gist is this.

if you rent the ice for a private function, you are limited to 50% of the capacity.

if you split the ice for hockey with said imaginary border, you have 2 "rooms" that each have a 25 person limit.

if you play a game, it is an indoor sport with a 25 person limit in total.

it is this arbitrary stupidity that people are trying to fight, not some revolution against restrictions that actually DO have plausible benefit, but Wolfe has dug in, in spite of the wishes of the people of state, elected officials, even his own party has begun to turn on these issues. since he can't be voted out, he's going to go down in a authoritarian rage.

[HockeyDad23]

1 minute ago, miked said:

No, they are not making up anything. this has been discussed multiple times on this site. This is straight from the gov office. If you put an imaginary 6 foot barrier at center ice, you have created 2 indoor spaces, that can each hold 25 people. 

these rinks have lawyers that are researching and contacting officials to try to figure out what they can and can't do. there are floating interpretations of certain things but the basic gist is this.

if you rent the ice for a private function, you are limited to 50% of the capacity.

if you split the ice for hockey with said imaginary border, you have 2 "rooms" that each have a 25 person limit.

if you play a game, it is an indoor sport with a 25 person limit in total.

it is this arbitrary stupidity that people are trying to fight, not some revolution against restrictions that actually DO have plausible benefit, but Wolfe has dug in, in spite of the wishes of the people of state, elected officials, even his own party has begun to turn on these issues. since he can't be voted out, he's going to go down in a authoritarian rage.

Well said.  And Wolf is sticking to his guns despite the argument that they are using the science to come up with these requirements. Because truth be told, the requirements would be consistent in each state and county. Because they should be following the same science. Hypothetically.

[hockeyisgreat]

4 minutes ago, miked said:

arbitrary stupidity

Wow, you nailed it! I hope you are right about the lawyers researching it. Seems pretty clear to me! If the 25 limit is unconstitutional were is the problem with playing regular Hockey. I would be asking for my money back if my kid played on a PAHL team that is going to follow the 25 limit.