Regeln » , and that other sports suffer

BOCA RATON, Fla. -- All talk and no major changes didnt make this a dull NHL general managers meeting. A handful of GMs considered the three-day get together an excellent use of time because of the amount and quality of ideas that were discussed, including expanded video replay, coachs challenges and three-on-three in overtime. "Theres been a lot of discussion about a lot of different aspects of the game," Mike Gillis of the Vancouver Canucks said. "In my six years now, I think its one of the most productive meetings weve ever had." Ultimately only three things are set to be recommended for consideration to the competition committee: changing ends in overtime for a longer change, making faceoff violators move back instead of being tossed out and altering the faceoff circles to push players on the outside further away from each other. Those must go to the competition committee in June and then potentially to the board of governors for approval. A more liberal interpretation of kicked-in goals - allowing them to count if a players skate blade is on the ice - does not need to be approved by those parties. Commissioner Gary Bettman says the recommendations made represented the best ways to tweak a game that got rave reviews this week at Boca Beach Club. The feeling was that GMs didnt want to make changes just for the sake of it. "Were not looking at any core fundamental problems," Bettman said. "Thats a testament to the work the general managers do on an ongoing basis. In a meeting like this you can have a good, candid discussion, you can raise ideas and talk about why they work and why they dont work." Figuring out why a lot of ideas dont work, or at least bringing up unsolved issues that could lead to unintended consequences, was a large part of what the general managers did. Three-on-three in overtime, longer overtimes, video review, a coachs challenge system and goaltender interference engendered plenty of conversation and debate, but there was no consensus to move ahead with immediate changes in those areas and others for next season. Bettman said more "homework" can be done on those issues before the competition committee meets in June and then the GMs re-convene during the Stanley Cup final. But even though not much came of this meeting, count Craig MacTavish of the Edmonton Oilers as someone who believes one of the best changes was one that wasnt made. "I am happy there wasnt more done about video review," MacTavish said. There could be tweaks in that area in the not-too-distant future, including giving the situation room in Toronto more leeway on goals and possibly even putting video monitors in penalty boxes so that referees can make a better determination of goaltender interference. A last-minute goal by the Philadelphia Flyers against the New Jersey Devils on Tuesday night was waved off and likely could have been reviewable in that process if it were available. Calgary Flames president of hockey operations Brian Burke wondered if that might get a look during the pre-season. Hes all about ideas being discussed and tried out. "I just keep putting the stuff on the agenda, and I figure sooner than later some will pass," he said Tuesday. The lockout eliminated one opportunity to throw scenarios and possibilities around, as the GMs didnt have their normal three-day Florida meeting last year. Kevin Cheveldayoff of the Winnipeg Jets thinks thats why this was such a productive meeting. "I think theres lots of maybe pent-up thoughts from the last time that were able to have a multi-day discussion like this," Cheveldayoff said. George McPhee of the Washington Capitals thinks these meetings are always productive because of the exchange of ideas. "Even if we dont implement a new rule theyre productive because youve had comprehensive discussion about it and you do whats right for the game," McPhee said. The GMs dismissed a few things that they dont think need to change, such as goaltender fights. That was a hot topic at Novembers one-day setup meeting, which came soon after the incident involving Ray Emery of the Flyers and Braden Holtby of the Capitals. There simply wasnt enough support to even consider changes there after one event. "The rules are what they are and from a whole variety of constituencies, including the players, there doesnt seem to be any change in the consensus right now," Bettman said. "To effectuate a change there would have to be a change among the constituent groups and Ive been told is that if you ask the players it would be 99 to one that you leave it the way it is. So, it is something well continue to look at it, but there was nothing to report." There wasnt much to report overall. Thats not necessarily a bad thing. "There are no major announcements or major changes," Bettman said. "There will be some recommendations, some things people will look at ... but you should continue to enjoy the game principally the way its being played." Rockies Jerseys China .com) - The Detroit Pistons and Boston Celtics both entered Wednesday nights game riding lengthy losing streaks. Fake Rockies Jerseys . Carey Price made 27 saves for Montreal (30-21-6) for his fourth shutout of the year and second in four games. David Desharnais added an empty netter for the Canadiens. Reto Berra stopped 25 shots for Calgary (21-28-7). https://www.cheaprockiesjerseys.us/ . Snedekers best result so far this year is a tie for eighth place at the Arnold Palmer Invitational in March. He sits 113th in FedEx Cup standings and has dropped to 31st in world rankings — not the results expected from a player ranked fourth in the world only two years ago. Colorado Rockies Pro Shop . -- Gary Harris gave No. Stitched Rockies Jerseys . 1 player in the world. So Duval gutted it out Thursday at the Byron Nelson Championship despite the pain from a muscle issue in his right elbow, a day after his stepson had to drive him because he couldnt even use that arm.The Vancouver Whitecaps were denied a well-earned three points against the Seattle Sounders on Saturday, after Gonzalo Pineda converted a controversial penalty kick to level the score at 2-2. Whitecaps skipper Jay DeMerit was judged to have fouled Sounders striker Cam Weaver, though the "foul" that DeMerit allegedly committed was a mystery to me. In the aftermath of the game, I tweeted this: If we start giving penalty kicks every time players make minimal contact heading crossed balls, well ruin the game. — Jason deVos (@jasondevos) May 25, 2014 To which I received this response: @jasondevos LOL -too late! You already ruined it with your stupid LTPD plan. #keepscore — Jon Empringham (@92jays93) May 25, 2014 While Mr. Empringhams tweet wasnt relative to the Vancouver Whitecaps game against the Seattle Sounders, it did highlight another important point: LTPD, the CSAs long-term player development program, is still very misunderstood. According to his twitter bio, Mr. Empringham is an elementary school teacher who coaches basketball, soccer and track. Given his occupation, he would appear to be the ideal proponent of the principles of LTPD. Yet he seems adamantly opposed to the removal of scores and standings for youth soccer players below the age of 13. While the removal of scores and standings is just one small component of the changes brought forward by LTPD, the concept still faces considerable pushback. I believe that much of that pushback comes from the general publics misunderstanding of the reason why scores and standings have been removed. Keeping scores and standings is not inherently bad for children. We havent been doing young players a disservice all of these years by tracking the results of their games, nor by adding up their wins and losses at the end of their seasons. What we have done, though, is compromise their development by linking their opportunities within the game – perceived or otherwise – to their results on the field. As it is my home province, I will use Ontario to explain. Until the introduction of LTPD, the "Pyramid for Play" (the name of the competitive structure for youth soccer in Ontario) was based on promotion and relegation between multiple tiers. The higher the tier, the more "competitive" the level of play. Tier 1, provincial "rep" soccer, was considered the highest level of play, while Tier 7, local "house league" soccer, was the introductory level. Teams who won their leagues (or finished in the top two or three, in some cases) were promoted to the next highest tier, while teams who finished bottom of their leagues (or finished in the bottom two or three, in some cases) were demoted to the next lowest tier. This movement of teams every year caused a major problem. Players as young as 9 were coming under immense pressure to win promotion - primarily from their coaches and parents. In some cases, failure to win promotion would lead to the break up of an entire team, as players would scatter over the off-season in order to tryout for teams that did win promotion. The concept of promotion and relegation created a false belief amongst coaches and parents that the key to success in the game - the way for kids to "make it" - was to play at the Tier 1 level, which began at the under-14 age category. The years leading up to under-14 were becoming a dogfight, as players jostled to be on a tteam that was poised to win promotion to Tier 1.dddddddddddd It didnt really matter how games were won, or what players were learning, so long as promotion was achieved. The competitive structure itself reinforced this "win at all costs" mentality, and youth soccer in Ontario found itself spiralling into a vicious cycle that was getting worse every year. In my time working as the Technical Director of the Oakville Soccer Club, I once had to gather the parents of an entire age groups competitive program after a fight had broken out amongst parents on the sidelines of an under-10 boys game. On another occasion, I had to intervene on the field of a house league game, as the coaches and parents were incensed by a call made by the referee – who was a 16-year-old girl – and were verbally abusing the young lady. Yet another incident saw a 14-year-old referee leave the field in tears after being verbally abused by spectators at a game. Over time, we have collectively lost sight of the fact that youth soccer is a game that is supposed to be enjoyed by its players, coaches and spectators. Young children shouldnt have to shoulder the burden of "needing to win this game" in order to win promotion or avoid relegation. That pressure is difficult enough for seasoned professional players to handle. Imagine if children had to finish in the top three in their class in order to graduate to the next grade each year? Our school system would devolve into chaos - wed have parents submitting homework and assignments on behalf of their children, as theyd be terrified that their kids would miss out on graduation! Critics have argued that over-competitiveness amongst parents is a societal issue, and that other sports suffer from the same problems. If that is the case though, then surely it is up to our governing bodies to try to better the environments in which our children experience the game of soccer? Surely they should do everything in their power to compensate for our societys failings? Critics have also suggested that, rather than removing scores and standings, we should just remove promotion and relegation from the system. But doing so is far more difficult than it sounds. For starters, how does one determine which teams play at which competitive level? Does one make that determination based on population, geographic location, club size or historical club "success" – all the while knowing that any "success" that was previously achieved was done in a flawed system that was systematically abused? Additionally, there are many people firmly entrenched within the clubs and districts who rule the game in Canada who dont think anything is wrong with how we develop soccer players. Some of those individuals believe this because they do not know what a genuine, player-centric development system should look like, while others believe this because they have a vested financial interest in maintaining the status quo. It is those individuals who will fight the hardest to maintain the previous competitive structure. The only way to combat this is through education – by shining a light on what our real problems are. Because the only way we are going to fix our problems is if we first acknowledge what they really are. It isnt about scores and standings being "bad" for kids. It is about the behaviour that keeping scores and standings brings out in adults. ' ' '