HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Other Leagues > Canadian Junior Hockey > WHL
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Saskatchewan Minor Hockey Thread

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-28-2013, 11:19 AM
  #826
redtitan20
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 29
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PokeCheck101 View Post
Outstanding. Now this is a discussion. Thanks for the data. This can easily be argued to be attributable to poor coaching though. You would have to concede that much. But what about my previous comments on other contact sports and kids under 13? Anyone? I mean if we are all concerned about 13 and under then shutting down minor football and other contact sports should be a given right everyone? I mean certainly we all must agree. Let's see, both are collision sports. In fact there is far more contact in football then hockey.
Lacrosse, soccer, baseball (crashing home plate or 3 guys calling for a pop fly), playground apparatus, bicycling, skateboarding, longboarding, snowboarding, downhill skiing, water-skiing, tubing, parachute games, musical chairs, whew I'm outta breath, but i probably missed something. You could probably add non-contact hockey, rec hockey, girls hockey. Refs should probably be required at all practices too cuz we all know the coaches dont understand #bubblewrap #funnotallowed #onlyplayhopscotch

redtitan20 is offline  
Old
05-28-2013, 01:37 PM
  #827
Superbowlfishca
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 196
vCash: 500
Contact in Hockey

Quote:
Originally Posted by Derek Sutton View Post
I was trying to point out that not playing contact until Bantam has not hurt to quality of hockey/ players coming out of the Q. They are more then able to handle players who have played two extra years of contact hockey.
I also believe that the most persuasive study presented showed that between Alberta and Quebec, the were 300% more concussions in Pee Wee in Alberta and the numbers for Bantam were nearly the same between the two provinces. The numbers are presented in percent not by head count.
Great posts All but
I would like to enter the debate by saying I read an article written by Steve Simmons of the Sun. The point he makes in the article is Hockey Canada and all people entering into the discussion are scaring parents and kids from playing the great game of hockey because the perception out there that it is somehow dangerous.

ďHockey not that dangerous. HOCKEY NOT AS DANGEROUS AS SKIING
More brain injuries, percentage wise, occur from bike injuries or kids falling down the stairs than from playing minor hockey.
The Canadian Institute for Health Information showed more than 2,300 hospital admissions resulted from skiing- and snowboarding-related injuries in the winter of 2012, compared to 1,114 hockey players who landed in a hospital bed.
There are significantly more registered hockey players than skiers in CanadaĒ
We need to change the message. The hockey experience is a lifelong journey binding together families and friends. We need to stress that for the vast majority hockey is a safe sport. 90% of kids registered in minor hockey play at the recreational level.
I say ban hitting at all recreational levels.
This gives parents (and kids) the opportunity to evaluate the risks and then determine what kind of hockey they wish for their kids.

The political correctness of what is going on in society is now filtering into the fabric of hockey in this country and it sickens me. Why do we let our governments and agencies continue to dictate how we should live. Hockey Canada needs to put a system in place that gives people choices without destroying the fabric of our game. Keep hitting in hockey at the PeeWee A and AA levels or even go back to Atom AA levels. Having a kid go into Bantam A or AA hockey without being exposed to hitting at a younger age is like committing concussion suicide.

I coached kids at the Atom AA level(no hitting) then moved up and coached those same kids at the Peewee AA level. All they talked about coming in to Peewee was the excitement of being able to hit. The first three weeks of them playing was hilarious. All these kids running around like chickens with their head cutoff trying to make a hit. The big kids acting tough and many of the smaller kids fearful of being hit. (It took some of the kids until after Christmas to lose that fear.) The second years having one year under their belt learned that its still hockey. You cant run around and take yourself out of position just to make a hit. Most had no fear. As has been mentioned on many posts its all about the coaching. Its about body position and separating people from the puck and coaches need to teach discipline and cant promote taking a kids heads off. Most kids end up loving the contact. They have to be taught to keep their head up. Be aware of others on the ice. Use the boards as your friend when avoiding hits, donít look back for passes. Donít make passes to put a teammate at peril. Etc. Coaches can coach these skills but donít forget in order for kids to learn these skills they have to experience what its like to learn these lessons. At Atom the kids are by and large of similar height and weight. Could they take hits and have concussions result - absolutely but id sooner it happen from a 100 lb kid than to have to learn a lesson from a 180 pound bantam kid. I truly believe we are putting kids at risk of more serious concussions (donít forget the stats do not indicate the severity of the concussion) if we follow this path.

One other point nobody has talked about is equipment and Don Cherry has brought up this issue many times. When I played hockey most everything was soft padding especially the elbow pads and shoulder pads and really other than the odd sore elbow I never received any serious elbow injuries. Now the players wear armour and this hard shell stuff can do serious damage. Kids lower the boom with hard shell equipment because they can do this and avoid pain because of the protection. With soft shell human nature kicks in where they donít feel as invincible out there. Very easy solution to mandate without changing the entire fabric of contact in hockey.

Superbowlfishca is offline  
Old
05-28-2013, 02:19 PM
  #828
redtitan20
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 29
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbowlfishca View Post
Great posts All but
I would like to enter the debate by saying I read an article written by Steve Simmons of the Sun. The point he makes in the article is Hockey Canada and all people entering into the discussion are scaring parents and kids from playing the great game of hockey because the perception out there that it is somehow dangerous.

We need to change the message. The hockey experience is a lifelong journey binding together families and friends. We need to stress that for the vast majority hockey is a safe sport.

Hockey Canada needs to put a system in place that gives people choices without destroying the fabric of our game.

Most kids end up loving the contact. They have to be taught to keep their head up. Be aware of others on the ice. Use the boards as your friend when avoiding hits, donít look back for passes. Donít make passes to put a teammate at peril. Etc. Coaches can coach these skills but donít forget in order for kids to learn these skills they have to experience what its like to learn these lessons.I truly believe we are putting kids at risk of more serious concussions (donít forget the stats do not indicate the severity of the concussion) if we follow this path.

One other point nobody has talked about is equipment and Don Cherry has brought up this issue many times. Now the players wear armour and this hard shell stuff can do serious damage.
Well said Superbowl. I read the same article by Simmons this morning, hence some of my rant above. The message is wrong, the decision is wrong.

Parents and kids are scared of the game - this is wrong.
Hockey Canada is leaving us all with no choice - this is wrong.
The equipment is wrong.

I'd really like to see the studies and stats there decision was based on, as every time I turn around someone (ie. Simmons) has more stats to make us question Hockey Canada's decision.

Something is wrong, but its not our game.

redtitan20 is offline  
Old
05-28-2013, 04:10 PM
  #829
TitanJofaDaoust
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 52
vCash: 500
I would presume that most of us value skating, stick-handling and shooting far more than body contact. Not to mention life-long playing of a sport that rarely has any contact after minor hockey is completed.

I really don't think this issue is a big as we are all making it out to be .. development of the skills above can now occur with much less risk of injury at the most vulnerable ages for 2 more years - makes sense to me.

Kids in Bantam are bigger/stronger and arguably more mature and ready for contact - makes sense to me.

I trust that Hockey Canada is well-informed and has not gone into this national decision with a lack of knowledge.

TitanJofaDaoust is offline  
Old
05-28-2013, 05:59 PM
  #830
coach kleats
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 65
vCash: 500
Ahh yes the good old age of hitting debate. I am sure this will get people fired up. I think it is like the climate change debate. You could read data supporting both sides but we will likely just read the data that supports the side we were leaning to already.

I have read so called data and studies that support both sides so I am not really to sure what to think. I can see the argument that the earlier you bring it in and teach it the better the players get at it (giving and receiving) so you are less likely to have injuries at the higher levels. but I can also see the concern that a concussion at 8 or 9 is more damaging that one at 13 or 14 because the brain is developing so much more when you are younger. So again I am not really sure where I stand. It also appears that jurisdictions that have not allowed hitting until Bantam for a few years have not been adversely affected.

I do agree with that Steve Simmons article about it being a bit over blown against hockey when there are plenty of other sports and activities that you can get concussed. But in saying that just because you can get concussions in other sports does that mean we should not look to reduce the amount of concussion in hockey? That seems short sighted.

So again I am not sure where I stand on what the proper age should be to allow hitting but I do know that regardless of what age kids are allowed to hit they should be taught to do it at least the age level before. I think they should even allow rules similar to women's hockey at the level below hockey so that proper pinning and rubbing out techniques are taught before all out hitting is allowed.

coach kleats is offline  
Old
05-28-2013, 08:20 PM
  #831
Derek Sutton
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 12
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbowlfishca View Post
Great posts All but
I would like to enter the debate by saying I read an article written by Steve Simmons of the Sun. The point he makes in the article is Hockey Canada and all people entering into the discussion are scaring parents and kids from playing the great game of hockey because the perception out there that it is somehow dangerous.

“Hockey not that dangerous. HOCKEY NOT AS DANGEROUS AS SKIING
More brain injuries, percentage wise, occur from bike injuries or kids falling down the stairs than from playing minor hockey.
The Canadian Institute for Health Information showed more than 2,300 hospital admissions resulted from skiing- and snowboarding-related injuries in the winter of 2012, compared to 1,114 hockey players who landed in a hospital bed.
There are significantly more registered hockey players than skiers in Canada”
We need to change the message. The hockey experience is a lifelong journey binding together families and friends. We need to stress that for the vast majority hockey is a safe sport. 90% of kids registered in minor hockey play at the recreational level.
I say ban hitting at all recreational levels.
This gives parents (and kids) the opportunity to evaluate the risks and then determine what kind of hockey they wish for their kids.
I would like to point out some glaring holes in this study, the biggest is that concussion victims are not treated by a hospital stay. It is a trip to the ER, then weekly follow ups to the family doctor. Skiing and snowboards injuries are typicaly broken arms/ wrists which are part of growing up and 99% of the time do not have long term side effects, a concussion is totally different. Not only that but skiing accidents for the most part tend to be "self inflicted" for the lack of a better term, as skiing is a solo sport, not a head to head competition where the opposition is COACHED to "take em out" (could you imagine if someone came up with full contact skiing, where kids were encouraged and rewarded for full on collisions? wouldn't that be great?).

This past winter I watched approx 25 Novice and Atom games (non contact), 20 AA Pee Wee games and 20 AAA bantam games following various family members around. Three times we waited for Paramedics to carry a kid off the ice and all three times it was at the Pee Wee games. Two times it was for Nasty hits(one form behind and one straight into the cross bar neck first) and the third time was from a kid trying to lay a hit, and lost his edge, sending himself face first into the boards. Eliminating body checking will not put an end to injuries or concussions but will go a long ways to reduce them will not hurt hockey development whatsoever.

There tends to be two types of people who are "pro checking". The parents of the higher end kids, who generally are bigger, faster and smarter so they are not subjected to as much hitting, and in fact tend to lay the bigger hits. And the Parents of kids who are the ones which have size on their side and are physically ahead of other kids the same age.

I also believe a lot has come from coaching as well. No coach has ever said "don't worry about finishing your hits". It's ALWAYS finish your checks, which in the minds of some 12 yr olds, who are not yet mature enough to realize the difference between literally speaking and figuratively speaking, that means "hit everyone all the time." As well kids are often rewarded with a "C" or an "A" on their jersey because they are physical players who lay the big hits, instead of rewarding the little kid who gives his all or a well spoken young guy who can communicate with the Ref.

EDIT: I forgot the third type of "pro checking" parent, this would be the ones that think checking will make their kids tougher, and it might, but waiting two more years isn't going to make him swing from the other side of the plate.


Last edited by Derek Sutton: 05-28-2013 at 08:28 PM.
Derek Sutton is offline  
Old
05-28-2013, 11:55 PM
  #832
PokeCheck101
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 527
vCash: 500
Body Checking Decision

Folks, I would suggest everyone take a read on this topic from SHA site:
http://www.sha.sk.ca/minor/minor-fem...-research.html. If you haven't looked at it, it is the results of a five year study conducted by SHA and Hockey Canada. Pay particular attention to the short report 1.2. You may be shocked to know that injury rates were actually very low and injuries directly attributed to body checking were even lower. I believe a number was 10% of 1000 participants. Everyone wants facts and these are some hard facts. Good on SHA for doing this. Now that is showing leadership. Incidentally SHA was the only dissenting province on the vote on banning bodychecking. It wasn't because they were ill informed either, they were very informed. Great job SHA, unfortunately they are handcuffed by Hockey Canada.

PokeCheck101 is offline  
Old
05-29-2013, 12:18 AM
  #833
PokeCheck101
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 527
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derek Sutton View Post
I would like to point out some glaring holes in this study, the biggest is that concussion victims are not treated by a hospital stay. It is a trip to the ER, then weekly follow ups to the family doctor. Skiing and snowboards injuries are typicaly broken arms/ wrists which are part of growing up and 99% of the time do not have long term side effects, a concussion is totally different. Not only that but skiing accidents for the most part tend to be "self inflicted" for the lack of a better term, as skiing is a solo sport, not a head to head competition where the opposition is COACHED to "take em out" (could you imagine if someone came up with full contact skiing, where kids were encouraged and rewarded for full on collisions? wouldn't that be great?).

This past winter I watched approx 25 Novice and Atom games (non contact), 20 AA Pee Wee games and 20 AAA bantam games following various family members around. Three times we waited for Paramedics to carry a kid off the ice and all three times it was at the Pee Wee games. Two times it was for Nasty hits(one form behind and one straight into the cross bar neck first) and the third time was from a kid trying to lay a hit, and lost his edge, sending himself face first into the boards. Eliminating body checking will not put an end to injuries or concussions but will go a long ways to reduce them will not hurt hockey development whatsoever.

There tends to be two types of people who are "pro checking". The parents of the higher end kids, who generally are bigger, faster and smarter so they are not subjected to as much hitting, and in fact tend to lay the bigger hits. And the Parents of kids who are the ones which have size on their side and are physically ahead of other kids the same age.

I also believe a lot has come from coaching as well. No coach has ever said "don't worry about finishing your hits". It's ALWAYS finish your checks, which in the minds of some 12 yr olds, who are not yet mature enough to realize the difference between literally speaking and figuratively speaking, that means "hit everyone all the time." As well kids are often rewarded with a "C" or an "A" on their jersey because they are physical players who lay the big hits, instead of rewarding the little kid who gives his all or a well spoken young guy who can communicate with the Ref.

EDIT: I forgot the third type of "pro checking" parent, this would be the ones that think checking will make their kids tougher, and it might, but waiting two more years isn't going to make him swing from the other side of the plate.
1. Any coach who coaches to "take em out" has no place in hockey, period. In fact I encourage any parents reading this to bring this to your executives attention. This is the first problem in minor hockey. Coaches are running around pretending to be coaching junior or pro hockey and living some fantasy of the way they think junior and pro is coached. Narcissism is damaging our sport.
2. I have never been associated with a coach in competitive AAA or AA who rewarded a player for knocking someone out. In fact, when this has occurred, generally speaking the player does not feel good about it (when coached properly to respect an opponent).
3. I will say this about injuries in minor hockey... Most are pseudo injuries. A player has not been injured rather shaken up. Minor hockey players are tenacious and know when they are "hurt" or "injured." A keen coach in tune with his players knows the difference. In fact I can count on one hand the times I have actually had to leave the bench to tend to a player over the course of several seasons of coaching.
4. The "nasty hits" you referred to hopefully were met with some supplementary discipline by the coaching staff of that team. This is something that I institute without exception.
5. Players on teams I have been involved in only get a "C" or "A" because of a solid work ethic, passion, and rise to the ocassion. It should have absolutely no bearing on whether or not they lay "big hits." Sure some are physical, but they play within the rules. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a player who plays on the edge. I've had some on my bench, and I've had some on the opposite bench. I'd take a handful of worker bees over a hand full of stars any day.

Parents, coaches, executive members... Get involved in what's going on at practices or games and do NOT bottle it up. If people are experiencing the above attitudes commented on here, there are problems. The root cause of injury often is not the checking, it's the lack of coaching in two areas: 1) Skill of checking, angling, gap and timing, 2) Respect. Not respect of your opponent. That's too easy. Respect for another human being.

PokeCheck101 is offline  
Old
05-29-2013, 08:15 AM
  #834
Superbowlfishca
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 196
vCash: 500
Give Us Choice

Quote:
Originally Posted by TitanJofaDaoust View Post
I would presume that most of us value skating, stick-handling and shooting far more than body contact. Not to mention life-long playing of a sport that rarely has any contact after minor hockey is completed.

I really don't think this issue is a big as we are all making it out to be .. development of the skills above can now occur with much less risk of injury at the most vulnerable ages for 2 more years - makes sense to me.

Kids in Bantam are bigger/stronger and arguably more mature and ready for contact - makes sense to me.

I trust that Hockey Canada is well-informed and has not gone into this national decision with a lack of knowledge.
I don't trust Hockey Canada or any other agency thinking they know what is best for me or my kids. This is a point i thought i made clear. I want choice and I think all people should be given a choice.
Concussions in hockey should not be taken lightly but they can also happen in a non contact game. There is a risk element involved in playing any sport. Why can we not have a system that allows people choice. If a parent feels their child will develop better skill in a non contact game then put them in non contact hockey.

Superbowlfishca is offline  
Old
05-30-2013, 12:04 AM
  #835
PokeCheck101
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 527
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PokeCheck101 View Post
Folks, I would suggest everyone take a read on this topic from SHA site:
http://www.sha.sk.ca/minor/minor-fem...-research.html. If you haven't looked at it, it is the results of a five year study conducted by SHA and Hockey Canada. Pay particular attention to the short report 1.2. You may be shocked to know that injury rates were actually very low and injuries directly attributed to body checking were even lower. I believe a number was 10% of 1000 participants. Everyone wants facts and these are some hard facts. Good on SHA for doing this. Now that is showing leadership. Incidentally SHA was the only dissenting province on the vote on banning bodychecking. It wasn't because they were ill informed either, they were very informed. Great job SHA, unfortunately they are handcuffed by Hockey Canada.
All the folks who like hard facts, any comments on this yet? This pretty much convinces me not only did Hockey Canada get it wrong, they should've lowered it to atom AA.

PokeCheck101 is offline  
Old
05-30-2013, 09:34 AM
  #836
Derek Sutton
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 12
vCash: 500
Report 1.2, top of page two,

Only 13 diagnosed concussions in Pee Wee over a 4 year period out of nearly 15000 kids?

This looks to be more of a reporting/ diagnoses issue then anything else, perhaps Parents wanting to sway the numbers in order for them to keep hitting in Atom. Not only that but this study is 10 years old. I understand that that is the only time period where this information was available but the last ten years, from Eric Lindros to Sidney Crosby to Junior Seau have taught us all about concussions. What will hold a lot of value, and I'm sure we will hear about, is the difference in injuries between last year and this coming year in Bantam and in Pee Wee across Canada, then all this can be re evaluated.

Derek Sutton is offline  
Old
05-30-2013, 02:06 PM
  #837
coach kleats
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 65
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PokeCheck101 View Post
All the folks who like hard facts, any comments on this yet? This pretty much convinces me not only did Hockey Canada get it wrong, they should've lowered it to atom AA.
I have read this and like I said in my previous post if that is the way you were leaning anyway then you take this as being truth. But I have also read a couple of articles stating that the opposite is true. So what does one believe? There is a good article in the Leader post today talking about this issue (sorry not sure how to link things) and I am pretty sure it is the researcher that SHA used for their study saying that he doesn't think it matters what age checking is allowed the biggest issue is that it is taught properly.

Ultimately I think that is the biggest issue. No matter when checking is allowed if it isn't taught properly then there are going to be issues.

coach kleats is offline  
Old
05-30-2013, 04:39 PM
  #838
Derek Sutton
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 12
vCash: 500
Here we go....

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews...30-112610.html

I wonder how he plans on getting ice? You just know minor hockey organizations across Canada will be against this.

Derek Sutton is offline  
Old
05-31-2013, 01:16 PM
  #839
PokeCheck101
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 527
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derek Sutton View Post
Report 1.2, top of page two,

Only 13 diagnosed concussions in Pee Wee over a 4 year period out of nearly 15000 kids?

This looks to be more of a reporting/ diagnoses issue then anything else, perhaps Parents wanting to sway the numbers in order for them to keep hitting in Atom. Not only that but this study is 10 years old. I understand that that is the only time period where this information was available but the last ten years, from Eric Lindros to Sidney Crosby to Junior Seau have taught us all about concussions. What will hold a lot of value, and I'm sure we will hear about, is the difference in injuries between last year and this coming year in Bantam and in Pee Wee across Canada, then all this can be re evaluated.
Yes it's a conspiracy by parents to hide concussions to sway the numbers

PokeCheck101 is offline  
Old
05-31-2013, 05:11 PM
  #840
Rowdster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derek Sutton View Post
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews...30-112610.html

I wonder how he plans on getting ice? You just know minor hockey organizations across Canada will be against this.
Should not be a problem getting ice! Minor hockey is only a user/renter - like figure skating clubs and beer leagues. The problem may be in getting on-ice officials! The irony is that because there will only be a handful of games, these kids will be double rostered on a Hockey Canada Club in order to get in some regular games and practice times!

Rowdster is offline  
Old
06-06-2013, 03:20 PM
  #841
SaskRinkRat
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 499
vCash: 500
I noticed that the GSHL website has a note up about bantam tryouts this fall, and it says tryouts will begin at the end of August. If memory serves, they started a couple weeks later in previous years.

Anyone think that might be a signal that Saskatoon might be joining the SBAAHL?

SaskRinkRat is offline  
Old
06-07-2013, 07:46 AM
  #842
nah68
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 329
vCash: 500
I would think that after sat june 8, you will have your answer. I'm gonna go on a hunch and say the chance of Saskatoon joining is pretty low. In conversations with alot of Saskatoon faithful, it's easy to see why there are so many problems in trying to get this pushed through. First and foremost is the amount of teams....it's a pushing match between 2 bullies in a playground. Its easy to see that both sides have come to a stale mate and nethier side will budge. If members were polled on this issue it would get voted down again anways, until next year the 2000 parent group will be pushing to get into the league once again. There has been alot of talk about SHA mediating in this issue, problem is, they won't. And I think the reason why could be answered by what has happened in the past over this topic. Now theres 3 bullies in the playground! Question is how many parents that have a deep interest in playing in the sask league will scout out other options? And with that being said that will definetly put a heavy strain on getting this done for the year 2014/15.


Last edited by nah68: 06-07-2013 at 03:31 PM. Reason: word change
nah68 is offline  
Old
06-08-2013, 07:11 PM
  #843
PokeCheck101
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 527
vCash: 500
Solution is simple GSHL folks, move to a rural centre. Heh, this might be a good thing.... Boost rural hockey again!

PokeCheck101 is offline  
Old
06-08-2013, 07:13 PM
  #844
PokeCheck101
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 527
vCash: 500
Unbelievable that these two sides can not come to terms on # of teams. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

PokeCheck101 is offline  
Old
06-09-2013, 10:19 AM
  #845
SaskRinkRat
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 499
vCash: 500
Are they still at a stalemate after yesterday's meeting?

SaskRinkRat is offline  
Old
06-11-2013, 04:08 PM
  #846
redtitan20
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 29
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaskRinkRat View Post
Are they still at a stalemate after yesterday's meeting?
i've talked to a few in Stoon. the rumours change everyday. nobody seems to know. most are becoming less interested by the day with some even saying forget it - they'll play zone next year. i dont believe that, however it goes to show how stupid the whole thing is.

redtitan20 is offline  
Old
06-12-2013, 08:59 PM
  #847
redtitan20
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 29
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by redtitan20 View Post
i've talked to a few in Stoon. the rumours change everyday. nobody seems to know. most are becoming less interested by the day with some even saying forget it - they'll play zone next year. i dont believe that, however it goes to show how stupid the whole thing is.
What do you know? SMHA website actually stating S'toon joining SBAAHL with 5 teams! Won't be long now till we find out who plays and how good/bad they are. Good luck S'toon!

redtitan20 is offline  
Old
06-13-2013, 07:45 PM
  #848
PokeCheck101
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 527
vCash: 500
Hmmm, wow, finally a decision. Good for you GSHL.

PokeCheck101 is offline  
Old
06-14-2013, 10:31 AM
  #849
Hockeynoitall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 78
vCash: 500
Lets move on now!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by PokeCheck101 View Post
Hmmm, wow, finally a decision. Good for you GSHL.
Now that Saskatoon has decided to join the league, which is going to be best for both parties I must say. Lets now drop the topic and move on to other area of interest.

Hockeynoitall is offline  
Old
06-14-2013, 05:01 PM
  #850
lefthook
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 69
vCash: 500
who is top of the pile this year ? Saskatoon ? Regina ? PS ?NE ?

lefthook is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:27 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2016 All Rights Reserved.