Kicking three seven-year-olds out of their league is a prime example of how screwed up minor hockey

[doniceage]

Taking part in a so-called outlaw league has resulted in three seven-year-old kids getting booted from their minor hockey association in Ontario. The only way for the kids to re-enter league play is by way of an appeal.

https://thehockeynews.com/news/artic...STER-All_Users

[penguinsChief]

All I have to say is WOW. To me it is no different than in the states if you play under USA Hockey and AAU, which you can do if you pay. AAU does full ice, but there is no insane rule that bans a kid from playing under USA. Gotta believe this to be all about the monopoly.

[sparty07]

Thats a good way to turn away kids from a sport they love.

[30ranfordfan]

Since I live in Hespeler, I want to clairify something. It's not a tiny town. It's not actually a town at all. The town of Hespeler ceased to exist in 1973, when Hespeler, Galt, and Preston amalgamated into the city of Cambridge. Much larger scale.... but it'd be like saying the Rangers play in the city of Manhattan. They don't. Manhattan isn't a city.

Cambridge is getting close to 150k people.

There are two minor hockey associations in Cambridge: Hespler minor hockey and Cambridge minor hockey. They actually play in different circuits - i forget what exactly the difference is, but I'm fairly certain they both fall under Hockey Canada.

There's lots of rules regarding where you can play. That's to stop associations from recruiting. In the municipality there are three cities (Cambridge, Kitchener, Waterloo). Rules are in place so Kitchener (for example) can just get the best kids from the whole region onto one team. That stuff makes sense.

But what the story gets at is the fact that HC does try to enforce a monopoly on kids hockey. I believe there are lots of programs around that are sanctioned... it's not like kids can't get extra instruction or ice time if they want it, they're just not allowed to get it from anyone they want.

I'm sure HC will tell you that's because they have strick guidelines as to how programs should be run, and they only want kids who are leaning under their sanctioned programs to participate in their programs. The "outlaw" league may be teaching bad things... and they don't want that getting into their programs.

I suspect what the real issue is, is that you pay to be sanctioned. HC has basically ALL the kids playing under it - so if you want your hockey school to be successful, you need to play by the HC rules (i.e. pay them)

The cell phone comparisson is a little weak though. If i get a phone from one company, and get a second from another... these phones don't really interact with one another. If kid A was playing Hespeler minor hockey, and his sister was playing in an "outlaw" league - while the parents would be going to games and paying for the sports... nothing prevents that from happening (though a parent couldn't volunteer with both organizations)

This is more like GM telling you that the warrenty on your car is only good if you go to a mechanic with a GM certification. It's not because the others arnt just as good... It's because the cert is an annual license fee, and they want to get paid.

The other thing that should be pointed out here: The parents. These 6 and 7 year olds may not undertand the rule... but you can be sure that their parents did. There is no way that kid was enrolled in the secondary league, and his parenent was actually ignorant of the rules. They just didnt think it would be enforced.

That's the next point I'll bring up, and probably the saddest part in all this. Likely coaches were aware these players got ice time elsewhere, and didnt care. What happend? My bet: Little Johnny is better at hockey than little Timmy. Little Johnny's parents put him in this outlaw league. Little Timmy's dad complained to either HMH, or HC, got Johhny kicked off the team, and now Timmy us the star.

Having said all that, i think the rule is pathetic. There is no reason these kids shouldn't enroll in other hockey programs if they want... it's just HC protecting it's bottom line.

[doniceage]

Thanks for clarifying Sean.

Don

[Spiderpool]

"Hockey Canada is very clear on this. In Section 6.22 of Hockey Canada’s Policy and Procedures Manual, which of course every parent knows inside and out, it clearly states that any player who plays even an exhibition game with an outlaw league after Sept. 30 will lose all membership privileges with Hockey Canada and may only reapply for them after the season. “If a participant makes the choice to participate in these ‘outlaw’ programs, they must understand the ramifications of that choice,” the manual reads, “and that the sanctions described in this paragraph will remain in effect even if the league or team folds, or the individual is released, suspended or fired.”

Should have read the manual.....

What happens when the referee doesn't read the referee manual?

I get upset too when I get in trouble/fined for doing something that I am not allowed to do.

I got a speeding ticket the other day. Damn cops are so "screwed up".

[doniceage]

"Hockey Canada is very clear on this. In Section 6.22 of Hockey Canada’s Policy and Procedures Manual, which of course every parent knows inside and out, it clearly states that any player who plays even an exhibition game with an outlaw league after Sept. 30 will lose all membership privileges with Hockey Canada and may only reapply for them after the season. “If a participant makes the choice to participate in these ‘outlaw’ programs, they must understand the ramifications of that choice,” the manual reads, “and that the sanctions described in this paragraph will remain in effect even if the league or team folds, or the individual is released, suspended or fired.”

Should have read the manual.....

What happens when the referee doesn't read the referee manual?

I get upset too when I get in trouble/fined for doing something that I am not allowed to do.

I got a speeding ticket the other day. Damn cops are so "screwed up".

Thanks for sharing. Okay so here is a question. As you mentioned if a parent, coach, referee, league employee violate a rule do they get boooted out of the league.

Don

[30ranfordfan]

"Hockey Canada is very clear on this. In Section 6.22 of Hockey Canada’s Policy and Procedures Manual, which of course every parent knows inside and out, it clearly states that any player who plays even an exhibition game with an outlaw league after Sept. 30 will lose all membership privileges with Hockey Canada and may only reapply for them after the season. “If a participant makes the choice to participate in these ‘outlaw’ programs, they must understand the ramifications of that choice,” the manual reads, “and that the sanctions described in this paragraph will remain in effect even if the league or team folds, or the individual is released, suspended or fired.”

Should have read the manual.....

What happens when the referee doesn't read the referee manual?

I get upset too when I get in trouble/fined for doing something that I am not allowed to do.

I got a speeding ticket the other day. Damn cops are so "screwed up".

I do agree with your point here. I would be SHOCKED if the parents did not know the rules, and the consequences. They just broke them anyway.

I also believe that when rules are bad, they should be challenged. Putting your 7 year old's ability to play hockey in the crosshairs of Hockey Canada isn't the way to do it though.

It's a stupid rule, that only exists to ensure Hockey Canada's pockets are filled.

[30ranfordfan]

Also wanted to add this... as the various minor hockey leagues in Ontario are kind of weird to follow (I got into this a bit with my first post):

Hockey Canada (HC) is a big governing body that spans the nation. There is also the Ontario Minor Hockey Federation (OMHF) (similar to Hockey Canada, but just Ontario). If you're in one, you're in the other.

Where this issue happened (Hespeler, which is actually part of Cambridge) the league is the "Hespeler Minor Hockey Association" (HMHA). It is part of the "Ontario Minor Hockey Association" (OMHA) , which falls under the governing bodies OMHF, and HC.

I won't get into the specifics of the geography (folks from Ontario would know a lot of these places) but Hespeler, as part of OMHA, plays against teams from Guelph, Dundas, Ancaster, Woolwhich, Centre Willington, New Hamburg (amoung others). Everything is less than 100 KM (60 MI) away.

As I mentioned already: Hespeler "the town" doesn't exist. It hasn't existed since 1973. It's actually part of Cambridge (approaching 150k people). In addition to HMHA, there is also the "Cambridge Minor Hockey Association" (CMHA). Kids playing in that league are NOT part of OMHA. They're part of the "Minor Hockey Alliance of Ontario" (MHAO) - often referred to simply as "The Alliance".

Those teams also play against teams for other cities, basically the same sized geographic region, but different associations. Cambridge will play against Kitchener & Waterloo, but not Guelph or Hespeler (for example).

CMHA is part of OMHF & HC as well. I don't recall the reason why there are two separate bodies like that..... the OMHA is much older (the Alliance only started in the early 90s). I suspect some of it is eligibility rules. I don't think it's as hard for a kid from Hespler (as an example) to find a way to play in Cambridge (changed federations) as it would be for the same kid to play in Guelph (changed team, inside the same federation).


Now, none of that is really the meat & potatoes of what the problem with the kids from this story was. I just wanted to explain that there are different federations that are not considered "outlaw" leagues. The trees (showing different federations / governing bodies) that a kid in

HC > OMHF > OMHA > HMHA
HC > OMHF > MHAO > CMHA


In addition to these leagues, there is also what is to be considered "outlaw" leagues. These typically don't cater to "house league" players. They're "rep hockey" leagues, with bigger travel schedules, etc.

The allure of traveling to play hockey, betting competition, my kid is going to be a pro.... that has a lot to do with why these leagues exist. Suppose you've got a 7 year old:

He tries out for the 'A' team, and while he makes it through several cuts - he ultimately doesn't make it. Kid really like hockey, parents were keen on him playing "rep" hockey, but he wasn't good enough - so he's left with (just) house league. So the kid that wanted to play for the "Hespeler Shamrocks" or "Cambridge Hawks" (depending on what part of town he was from) doesn't get to.

There's also the "Cambridge Renegades", who are part of the "Ontario Rep Hockey League". Not as many kids trying out... it's basically pay your way onto the team (at least according to what I've read). That kids was going to play 2 or 3 nights a week with HMHA (I believe that's typical for a house league... when you combine practices and games) but he wanted to play more (or maybe his parents wanted him to play more?). Since there's another program locally to sign up for, he does both.... that fixes the issue.



There's stuff out there that dances around the question of "why". Why can't that kid sign up for another hockey association? Why does Hockey Canada have to control everything? It does have to do with resources. If another league starts up - they could lose coaches, refs, players, etc to it. They don't want that to happen..... so they ban participation in it.

This was posted by the Niagara Flyers in 2016 (part of OMHA), in regards to "outlaw" leagues:

https://hockeyniagara.com/Articles/2...OUTLAW_LEAGUES


There are lots of points in there that can only be considered "half truths":

Coach, manager and trainer certifications – All of our coaches, managers and trainers are certified and approved by Hockey Canada. Police checks are required.

The inference is that the "outlaw" leagues do not have certified coaches, etc... or Police checks are not required. That's not true though. Most of the coaches were certified by Hockey Canada.

Insurance – Hockey Canada has a proven, reliable insurance system from which our players benefit.


Again, you state something like that and imply that the "outlaw" league doesn't have insurance. That's simply not true.

There are plenty of dates (well, years) mentioned in there. They bring up the history, how old these leagues are. So what? Why does that make them better / more legitimate ? (it doesn't)

The blurbs about lesser ice time, and not being allowed to compete in HC tournaments is correct though.

[30ranfordfan]

And another update! The kids (and the coach) all got let back into HMHA:

https://www.cambridgetimes.ca/commun...investigation/

The more I've read about this, it seems that the "outlaw" hockey programs out there: It's not about competing skills development programs.... simply "leagues".

These kids were enrolled in skills development programs (outside of Hockey Canada) that included two teams worth of kids playing games against each other as part of those sessions... but no actual league. Since it was found that what they were playing in was not a league, the decisions was reversed.