Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 2:36 pm

Wed Mar 14, 2018 5:53 pm #31

No update to the original story: ... -are-here-

Then there's this thread that Todd had to edit himself: ... re+Here%21

And not a single post from you later on simply saying "sorry, I was misinformed".

But yes Kevin, please tell us all how to act like an adult or a man.
Meet me face to face, like a man. I will review anything you feel I have said in error, and if the information is incorrect, I will acknowledge to you in person and then in writing.

Now that's an offer you can't refuse. Don't refuse it.

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 12:38 pm

Fri Mar 16, 2018 12:55 pm #32

I was talking about technical aspects on a personal level, not systems or structure.
Todd, I suspect we have similar reading tastes, to wit, Malcolm Gladwell. But on to the topic..
I think the balance is between and betwixt yourself and xbob15x. Ideally, the "fine skills" (or individual skills) should be taught by an experienced athlete. The Coach however, need only be an accomplished motivator/leader and be "motivated" him/herself. When you combine a leader/motivator (which, really are synonymous) with them being motivated to take on a task, you have a truly potent combination. The person with these skills will absorb every nugget of knowledge, read/study, immerse themselves and most importantly, they will ask the difficult, critical questions. And generally, they do so with no pre-conceived notions.

As an anecdote......

I recall being an assistant coach in minor hockey with a very experienced high level hockey player as head coach. In and around that time, hockey "removed" the red line. The coach asked me about lacrosse type strategies we could employ. When I gave him suggestions, there was incredible trepidation on his part. "But, we don't play hockey that way" was the response. My point was... "exactly"! Other teams will have to adjust to our style of play, losing their own game plan and we will have success. However, in the end he succumbed to tradition. Still, it was a great experience, he was a great guy and it was a great year. Humans naturally resist change. We just do.

I totally agree that innovation almost always comes from the outlier; whereas the "experienced" tend to stick to what they know.

All in all, an interesting debate.

Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 11:18 pm

Fri Mar 30, 2018 3:46 am #33


A model cannot include every contingency that applies to it, that is why it is a model. In the AAAA-A scenario,{or even the current ratings scenario) there is no presumption that any player must play out of town. The ability to play on a higher calibre team is an option without a lot of administrative overhead. And not all kids/families would want to play out of town, but it would give an association a good reason to incentivize their programming.

The more likely a scenario, the more likely contingencies ought to be planned for. So in a tournament situation, the host tournament would have spare coaches yes? Or the team that is down a coach could have a registered coach as an assistant. Not requiring certain credentials to be head coach doesn't mean coaches can't get those credential anyways, it's an option that makes it easier for some teams to get door-openers who don't wish to go through the time and expense of having to obtain a credential they might never plan on using. I don't think it was a big deal to get my creds, but I had no other option. And house league coaches need no credentials.

Trainers - good point. Although for some reason I believe that medical and emergency personnel have much more first aid training, possibly an annual thing for some.

In schools - in our region it is part of the PE curriculum of a lot of schools, including high school varsity teams.

Interlocking house league - agreed although the caution is that I have already seen interlocking house league being used as an excuse by people who don't care about house league or growing the game at the grassroots. They are killing lacrosse because they don't have a clue.

Cross-floor, rule modifications - good God man, are you trying to start a war? LOL! These are all good ideas. Jr. PPW used to be cross-floor here, and there is likely no reason it couldn't be used cross-floor in the Sr. PPW.

As for rule modifications - I convened the Pee Wee division last year and experimented with the rules because we had major novices mixed in: all the players, parents and referees before games were reminded that: only body checking between players of similar size, no slashing on the body at all and all cross-checking had to be place-and-push. The first few weeks, one dad pulled his kid out because the game wasn't rough enough or something. Otherwise the parents, kids and referees all made the game that much more fun with the emphasis on stick skills, positional play, running, etc. We had very few problematic incidents. These sorts of rule modifications can be done, alone with any of the modifications contained in the LTAD scenarios.


I actually applaud the moderator for not banning the charged hate crime dude. Give him the forum to post names and allegations he seems unable to prove. I would think that would be perfect ammo to sue him--but i guess there would be no point suing someone that will dodge any court ordered payment, allegedly. Keep the entertainment flowing. Dilly Dilly.