Author Topic: Tryouts are pushed agaoin  (Read 15351 times)

alfirst

  • Peewee
  • ***
  • Posts: 124
  • LR Justice +16/-27
Re: Tryouts are pushed agaoin
« Reply #150 on: August 06, 2020, 03:10:54 PM »
So in this regard - what's the difference between AA and AAA on forming teams - same "camps" can be done with selected players.
Especially as we all know that AAA are basically your 3 teams (with some exceptions). Then players instead of going to different coaches (which happens now) can concentrate on a particular coach once selected and camps can slowly transform into team practices more and more.
Plus - more out of state tournaments open up for AA teams as well.


And yes, I understand the concern - but games will happen either way (in or out of state); coaches will be taking kids "for a ride". So sooner CA allows for games to happen - sooner the teams can be "in-house". 




SkatingDad

  • Midget
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
  • LR Justice +59/-84
Re: Tryouts are pushed agaoin
« Reply #151 on: August 06, 2020, 03:43:57 PM »
Out of state play is where this is all heading...

fistocuffs

  • Squirt
  • **
  • Posts: 76
  • LR Justice +28/-45
Re: Tryouts are pushed agaoin
« Reply #152 on: August 06, 2020, 04:18:17 PM »
I like the start your own league to get things rolling concept.   I dont think SCAHA and CAHA are going to run a game counter to State directives and will continue to say no to tryouts, teams, and scrimmages.
Some of it may be the implication(s) of creating and approving "team" rosters - when the state has currently shut  team sports down.



The USA hockey PSA seems to want teams and games to happen. 
Maybe its time to petition USA hockey directly and form a new Affiliate that can get games going in state.


Its quite a pickle to be in.  here is a story from both sides of coin. 


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/saskatchewan-aaa-hockey-teams-secretly-play-in-manitoba-1.5666146




805hockey

  • Mite
  • *
  • Posts: 39
  • LR Justice +4/-1
Re: Tryouts are pushed agaoin
« Reply #153 on: August 06, 2020, 05:05:06 PM »
Could a coach or a rink be able to form a "tournament team"?  Meaning, not necessarily a team affiliated with a club, but just a group of bantams who would like to play in a tournament in AZ or UT for instance.  I read earlier in this thread that there was disagreement whether this was possible or not...just curious.

notTHATdad

  • Squirt
  • **
  • Posts: 87
  • LR Justice +39/-4
Re: Tryouts are pushed agaoin
« Reply #154 on: August 06, 2020, 05:23:24 PM »

There is a WORLD of difference (in my mind) between doing this with 7-12 year olds and 16+ year olds trying to get drafted, or vie for Jr or college spots. Given this is the bantam board? I think Bantams could probably wait a while too. And the sneakiness with which they did this is the first hint that they were crossing a line.



I like the start your own league to get things rolling concept.   I dont think SCAHA and CAHA are going to run a game counter to State directives and will continue to say no to tryouts, teams, and scrimmages.
Some of it may be the implication(s) of creating and approving "team" rosters - when the state has currently shut  team sports down.



The USA hockey PSA seems to want teams and games to happen. 
Maybe its time to petition USA hockey directly and form a new Affiliate that can get games going in state.


Its quite a pickle to be in.  here is a story from both sides of coin. 


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/saskatchewan-aaa-hockey-teams-secretly-play-in-manitoba-1.5666146

alfirst

  • Peewee
  • ***
  • Posts: 124
  • LR Justice +16/-27
Re: Tryouts are pushed agaoin
« Reply #155 on: August 06, 2020, 07:58:58 PM »
If it is non-USA-hockey sanctioned event,
any coach can bring tournament team, order non-club jerseys and buy insurance.
If CAHA votes to allow AA team to form - then USA hockey events would be open to CA teams as well.
Obviously deeper into the season most of tournaments
will be under USA hockey umbrella


fistocuffs

  • Squirt
  • **
  • Posts: 76
  • LR Justice +28/-45
Re: Tryouts are pushed agaoin
« Reply #156 on: August 06, 2020, 10:16:57 PM »
I think USA hockey is so focused on getting $$$ they will authorize rosters and tournaments with no regard to any states Covid policies. 


If u sneeze you get a sanction number.  It will be that easy.


Ca may not certify any rosters for California teams.  The true test is.  Will USA hockey certify rosters for ca teams?  Just to get $$$.  Can ca teams go to USA hockey National office.  And get approvals?


I heard Illinois is debating a pause.  Can anyone confirm?


Knuckle Puck

  • Squirt
  • **
  • Posts: 52
  • LR Justice +49/-7
Re: Tryouts are pushed agaoin
« Reply #157 on: August 06, 2020, 10:29:25 PM »

lcadad

  • AHL
  • *****
  • Posts: 501
  • LR Justice +140/-114
Re: Tryouts are pushed agaoin
« Reply #158 on: August 07, 2020, 12:05:01 PM »
There is a WORLD of difference (in my mind) between doing this with 7-12 year olds and 16+ year olds trying to get drafted, or vie for Jr or college spots. Given this is the bantam board? I think Bantams could probably wait a while too. And the sneakiness with which they did this is the first hint that they were crossing a line.


There are clearly a lot of different opinions on what is safe, or fair, or morally correct, as well as what makes sense from a medical and scientific point of view.  Since there is no consensus on this internationally, it's not surprising that there is a lack of consensus within the US or Canada on a state by state basis. 

I would not be surprised that government agencies take the most conservative approach they can justify.  Municipally owned and operated rinks are not likely to open in California this year in my opinion, because of liability concerns.  If they don't open a rink, nobody can later come back and try and sue the city claiming they got Covid at the rink. 

The same line of thinking likely permeates public policy. 

The reality is that states like California have already, and will continue to apply inconsistent policy. Certain jobs are "essential" while others are not.  Certain businesses are essential, while others are not.  It's ok to go down to a Target and buy some groceries that were delivered from depots by trucks, unloaded at warehouses, stocked by employees and cashiers, but it's not ok to go get a hair cut.  So a person in a warehouse must be at work, interacting with lots of other people who literally may be traveling across state lines,  but a barber is prohibited from making a living, even if they wear masks, clean and disinfect between customers, and maintain social distancing guidelines within their business.  Who is more likely to be spreading an infection? 

People can run through the busy streets of NY covered in sweat, but kids who are virtually at no risk from Covid (and appear not to easily catch or pass Covid on to others) are not allowed to play a hockey game in a rink when they are wearing equipment head to toe, and we now have months of thousands of skates that appear to show this is relatively safe.  I mean, c'mon it's hundreds of skates with thousands of participants at this point, and that's not even counting all the figure skating going on.

Meanwhile, take a look on the streets and consider this simple fact.  Public transportation/buses have never been closed.  You can see a public bus packed with people on many of LA's city streets as people use it to commute to --- wherever.  Is that safe, to take a bus ride with 50 strangers on a daily basis?  But of course those buses have to run because some percentage of those people depend on that transportation to get to work or... well we don't really know do we?  They never mandated that only essential personnel with essential activities should be using public transportation.  Such a restriction would likely trigger law suits, so they won't do that.

Nobody would dare close or restrict public transportation, but it's easy for the city or state government to close up a rink with no understanding of the efficacy or potential danger, because these rink owners aren't going to be able to fight the power of the government, even if this long period of shuttering literally forces the rink into bankruptcy and closure.

Meanwhile, the city of Los Angeles is currently dealing with the aftermath of a rented home, used for a large party of hundreds of people, which culminated with gunfire, multiple people shot, and at least one death.  Neighbors called the police to report this unruly party clogging the narrow streets, and blaring loud music into the neighborhood, but when the police arrived, they simply left, stating that there was nothing they could do about the party because it was a private function occurring in a "private residence". 

Of course they had to return later to deal with the murder and such....

With this level of inconsistency and selective restriction and enforcement, it's clear that people have no alternative than to look out for their own self interest, because if you are expecting the government to do anything other than what is simplest for them to do, then you are probably going to be highly disappointed. 

The vast majority of deaths from Covid-19 occurred in Nursing homes and long term care facilities.  Aside from publishing some information on a website, what has the state of california done to address the flashpoint of the disease?

Apparently, the systems that are used to collate what the actual numbers of infections, recoveries and deaths are, is completely broken at the moment, and state officials don't even know what the hell is actually going on, other than to revert to manual records, phone calls to and from hospitals and spreadsheets.   Ironically, the state assessment and county rating system is entirely dependent on numbers, so what is allowed in one county vs disallowed in another depends on data that the state can't accurately account for. 

Here's the restriction criteria:

Doing fewer than 150 tests per 100,000 residents daily (over a 7-day average)
More than 100 new cases per 100,000 residents over the past 14 days...
Or having more than 25 new cases per 100,000 residents and an 8% test positivity rate
10% or greater increase in COVID-19 hospitalized patients over the past 3 days
Fewer than 20% of ICU beds available
Fewer than 25% ventilators available

So clearly these are going to be problematic for large densely populated counties who may never be able to get off the county watch list.  It was basically criteria assembled that makes it simple for the state to restrict large portions of the state at anytime, where in some portions of a large county there may be literally no danger of Covid-19. 

I'm not angry at the state, nor do I think they overreacted or made major mistakes.  They did what they could given the information provided and recommendation of experts.  But I also will continue to independently research approaches and the safety and viability of activities for me and my family, and push back against restrictions that aren't clearly defined, consistent with the current understanding of their relative safety or lack thereof, or downright absurd, when the state has shown they don't have the will or capability of doing so in a reasonable and consistent manner.

 




The Artist Formerly Known as Mite Dad

  • Peewee
  • ***
  • Posts: 218
  • LR Justice +44/-20
Re: Tryouts are pushed agaoin
« Reply #159 on: August 07, 2020, 02:12:23 PM »
You all should introduce your kids to tennis this fall.  ;)

hckyparent

  • Mite
  • *
  • Posts: 31
  • LR Justice +6/-5
Re: Tryouts are pushed agaoin
« Reply #160 on: August 08, 2020, 07:11:31 AM »
Hockey is happening back East. War at the Well had a good representation of 16+ teams in each division. CCM in New Hampshire is happening right now. Safety protocols are high and kids are mindful and being as safe as possible. Prep school hockey will also happen back East. All fingers are crossed that Beast League is starting soon. So, hockey will come back in the U.S. Just not everywhere right now....

Hockey sophist

  • Peewee
  • ***
  • Posts: 146
  • LR Justice +50/-98
Re: Tryouts are pushed agaoin
« Reply #161 on: August 08, 2020, 08:46:48 AM »

Washington Post this morning had a good but scary article on the impact of Covid-19 the heart's of athletes.   Research is accumulating on the subject and even those people with few or no symptoms are showing signs of damage to their hearts.  One study found up to 20% with heart damage.   


https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2020/08/08/athletes-coronavirus-heart-complications/?hpid=hp_hp-banner-main_virusathletes-830am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans

OneandDone

  • Squirt
  • **
  • Posts: 69
  • LR Justice +90/-39
Re: Tryouts are pushed agaoin
« Reply #162 on: August 08, 2020, 09:48:44 PM »
Thought we were back on track talking about hockey.  In the interest of a balanced viewpoint, I’d like to point out a few things:


Everyone from what I’m seeing is taking this very seriously and we are all moving with caution.  I can certainly understand the more cautious approach.

First of all, your article is from The Washington Post (hardly biased LOL) states that “The studies have not focused on athletes” and “The study was composed of middle-aged people, and Emery said he would expect athletes as a group to fare better.” 

The main concern from your article is Myocarditis which is inflammation of the heart caused mostly by viruses (not just the coronavirus).  Go ahead and read through this if you are concerned about the chances of Myocarditis from coronavirus versus any other virus. https://boston.cbslocal.com/2020/08/06/cardiologist-dr-jennifer-haythe-boston-red-sox-eduardo-rodriguez-covid-19-myocarditis/

or

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.001372


And your article states that Myocarditis causes about 75 deaths per year in athletes from 13 to 25, according to the Myocarditis Foundation.  So this isn’t just coronavirus related, but for years, among other causes any virus related.  Any athlete can die and from more than just heart conditions https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circulationaha.108.804617

It remains to be seen how the coronavirus will affect athletic hearts or contribute to deaths more or less than the many other virus and deaths per year, but guessing is ludicrous or as your article states “Research raises the possibility” or “It may not just be a cold. It may end your sports career” and “do not have enough data to make conclusions about how covid-19 might affect an athlete’s heart, and even recent studies of other populations require further validation.”  I love this one “When you look at covid in general, there seems to be a higher predilection for involvement with the heart than about any other virus we’ve seen.” And “Emery said cardiological experts worldwide have published five or six significant papers regarding covid-19 and athletes.”  Is it five or six?  References please - none?

Also when you look at articles referencing the same studies in your article that allow comments like this one https://www.statnews.com/2020/07/27/covid19-concerns-about-lasting-heart-damage/  Cardiologists make statements referring to the same studies like:

“Having 22 years in clinical cardiology I have a hard time believing that structural changes have occurred to the heart from COVID 19. I’d like to see additional information in the form of prior studies that prove there was no evidence of a structural heart abnormality before the images or specific modality had acquired them. In other words we don’t know if it was pre-existing before COVID or not. The term structural abnormality is misleading due to the fact that congestion from the course of the upper respiratory response could result in elevated pulmonary pressures which could induce small benign clinical abnormalities such as pulmonary hypertension, that could cause pulmonic insufficiency. Or long standing systemic hypertension that leads to aortic insufficiency. I don’t doubt or discredit clinical finding by patients that state they have experienced a significant drop in relative VO2 Max and or exertional dyspnea, with documented history of exercise. I just feel that recent findings in young patients with no prior diagnostic cardiac testing can not point to COVID as a clinically established cause.  Much more research, at the time of diagnosis of COVID and long term diagnostic cardiac testing is the only verifiable way to accurately know the long term outcome of such claims."

And

“Based on the study it is uncertain what % of subjects had pre-existing endocarditis, myocarditis, or pericarditis. From Table 1, Patient Characteristics, we can only tell that a sizable percentage of subjects had diabetes, hypertension and/or were smokers. The total number (n) who had at least one of these is not disclosed, which is a potential major failing of this study, especially since the control group is heart healthy individuals. In short, we have no idea if we are comparing apples to apples so there is no way to ascertain whether this study was properly designed and therefore whether the study’s conclusion are valid.”

Thanks for the “good but scary article on the impact of Covid-19 the heart's of athletes”.  What athletes? There were no athletes in their studies!! Athletes do die every year from Myocarditis, heat stroke, blunt force trauma etc...

Stay safe.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2020, 10:12:54 PM by OneandDone »

Hockey sophist

  • Peewee
  • ***
  • Posts: 146
  • LR Justice +50/-98
Re: Tryouts are pushed agaoin
« Reply #163 on: August 09, 2020, 10:23:48 AM »

OneandDone

  • Squirt
  • **
  • Posts: 69
  • LR Justice +90/-39
Re: Tryouts are pushed agaoin
« Reply #164 on: August 09, 2020, 01:38:02 PM »
So again, this is a hockey bantam board and you keep referencing studies of athletes but there is no study of athletes, just one baseball player that has a swollen heart.  In my opinion, baseball is hardly an aerobic activity. So why don’t we look at the 43 NHL players that have tested positive for Covid and have returned to play?  https://nhl.nbcsports.com/2020/07/13/nhl-43-players-tested-positive-for-covid-19-since-phase-2-june-8/ I would assume that 25% of those are still having problems but we don’t see that and they are thoroughly evaluated!

I guess we can summarize that we won't be seeing MR outside the house, visiting friends, at any JN skates or back at JS if the school opens up at any point before a vaccine is developed and thoroughly tested (long term since there could easily be some unknown side effects since everything is being rushed?)

Your admitted disdain for this Country and your political bias is very obvious in everything you post.

One study in that article is the same as your first referenced article. The second study references 18 – 34 year olds. Not only are they not <18, they are not characterized as athletes. Not to mention that in the second study, the problems they state that linger in 18-34 year olds range from cough, fatigue, headaches, etc.  No mention of heart evaluations and troubles.  I see plenty of 18-34 year olds who are in horrible shape. 


Return to Usual State of Health

Among the 270 of 274 interviewees with available data on return to usual health,† 175 (65%) reported that they had returned to their usual state of health a median of 7 days (IQR = 5–12 days) from the date of testing (Table 1). Ninety-five (35%) reported that they had not returned to their usual state of health at the time of interview. The proportion who had not returned to their usual state of health differed across age groups: 26% of interviewees aged 18–34 years, 32% aged 35–49 years, and 47% aged ≥50 years reported not having returned to their usual state of health (p = 0.010) within 14–21 days after receiving a positive test result. Presence of chronic conditions also affected return to health rates; among 180 persons with no or one chronic medical condition, 39 with two chronic medical conditions, and 44 with three or more chronic medical conditions, 28%, 46%, and 57%, respectively, reported not having returned to their usual state of health (p = 0.003) within 14–21 days after having a positive test result. Among respondents aged 18–34 years with no chronic medical condition, 19% (nine of 48) reported not having returned to their usual state of health. Adjusting for other factors, age ≥50 versus 18–34 years (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.29; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.14–4.58) and reporting three or more versus no chronic medical conditions (aOR = 2.29; 95% CI = 1.07–4.90) were associated with not having returned to usual health (Table 2). Obesity (body mass index ≥30 kg per m2) (aOR 2.31; 95% CI = 1.21–4.42) and reporting a psychiatric condition§ (aOR 2.32; 95% CI = 1.17–4.58) also were associated with more than twofold odds of not returning to the patient’s usual health after adjusting for age, sex, and race/ethnicity.

Resolution of Symptoms and Duration

Among the 274 symptomatic outpatients, the median number of symptoms was seven of 17 listed in the interview tool (IQR = 5–10), with fatigue (71%), cough (61%), and headache (61%) those most commonly reported (Figure). Among respondents who reported fever and chills on the day of testing, these resolved in 97% and 96% of respondents, respectively. Symptoms least likely to have resolved included cough (not resolved in 43% [71 of 166]) and fatigue (not resolved in 35% [68 of 192]); among 90 who reported shortness of breath at the time of testing, this symptom had not resolved in 26 (29%). The median interval to symptom resolution among those who reported individual symptoms at the time of testing but not at the time of the interview ranged from 4 to 8 days from the test date, with the longest intervals reported for loss of smell (median = 8 days; IQR = 5–10.5 days) and loss of taste (median = 8 days; IQR = 4–10 days). Among respondents who reported returning to their usual state of health, 34% (59 of 175) still reported one or more of the 17 queried COVID-related symptoms at the time of the interview.