Monday, February 20, 2023
Dear Members,
First I want to say thank you to you all for taking the time to fill out the survey posed by the board at minimal notice. We have had over 100 responses today at 108 to be precise, which gives us about 25% response rate on the 400 plus registered players that are within the ice hockey ACT membership base for the last 12 months. Substantial contributions require a substantial response, so buckle up because this is a long one.
This wide coverage of membership gives us confidence that the views are representative of the whole membership and the ability to remove as best as possible any confirmation bias on policy decisions is greatly assisted and also avails as to new areas that we weren’t aware of. Not every issue raised was widely held. Conversely, not every issue was viewed in the same way. Strong views with low response rates can be dealt with differently to those raised in a more neutral tone and across the board amount of responses. Good news is that after about 25 responses, the variety of what was being said changed minimally however there were a few standouts. With winter season just around the corner, time is of the essence if we are to make changes to the issues raised so as to give enough lead time for them to be explained and delivered.
The survey asked for the team you play on, we’ve organised the results into grades, but also split it up into seniors and juniors and a few other demographics which I’ll make a commentary about. The responses can be roughly triaged into high priority, medium priority low priority. High priority is to which we have to resolve prior to the upcoming winter season. If you’ve spoken on it, and we think that it’s a valid complaint or criticism, we’re definitely going to work on it.
Action Items
High Priority → Prior to winter 2023 season
- Draft process for upcoming drafts to be held to RoE rules
- Phoenix in C grade
- Running of leagues on as few nights as possible
- Schedule out as early as possible
- Cost of season provided at same time schedule is provided
Medium Priority
- Extra training such as power skating and skills sessions
- Avoiding last minute changes to games
- Exploration of extra trainings
- Running of Junior (and possibly Senior) seasons during school terms
Low Priority
- Review of playing up policy and production of a reasoning behind policy document
Spectators in the rink
An unmissable question from almost everybody was why spectators are unable to watch games. One player saying that their family should have the right to watch just how horrible they are. I have emailed John at the rink and he has advised that he would need to hire more staff and look at renegotiating his public liability insurance. If spectators were allowed back in then a charge of $5-$10 will probably be levied.
Hot Topic – Senior League Drafts
Regulation of process
The first most pressing issue is the draft across all the grades with the issue of regulation. The allowing of players into a grade who weren’t skilled enough, or players who were coming in from what I’ve dubbed the side door under “gentleman’s agreements” were presented as the two major issues. The recurring theme was strong teams are able to get friends or convince people who are showing up to on non league drop ins to play for their team (sometimes under fabricated relationship alibis) without going through a chance for other teams who are less performing to be able to select that player, strong teams get stronger. The current situation is more wild west land grabs than ordered civility.
An inability to force players up a grade
There have been a few instances of players who are well above where they play in terms of skill level, who won’t go up a level for whatever reason, which I’m not going to even speculate about here. This is not fun for people who feel they’re being beaten up on and the same applies for, and this is not concerned with the draft, but in the similar pattern is some of the Phoenix players who are I would say regular B grade players who come down to play in C grade. It’s that over and above the standard that players who come along to look for a fair competition and sport find a little bit hard to deal with.
Side doors for players new to the grade
The next issue is the side entry problem where players who should be offered to a weaker team to make them stronger therefore more competitive and balancing up leagues are being siphoned off to the stronger teams who then become even stronger and thus the range from top to bottom becomes even more pronounced. This is not specific to one particular grade. So one of the the first things that will be changed or enforced because the rules exist already is an adherence to the draft process to make it fair.
This is not a way to tell teams which players you must take, it simply outlines a clear and transparent process to be eligible to be picked for this grade you must be able to be available or possibly selected by every team that plays in that league. It removes back door loopholes and affords a fair and equitable method for weaker teams to become more competitive. It’s the luck of the draw order and how selections go that will dictate who gets which players and also there should be a way to trade for particular players.
This is the standard convention for the ordering of the draft for time immemorial in IHACT and is encapsulated in the RoE. What happens there is if we can enforce the draft going in reverse order, with no players being siphoned off to stronger teams is that the teams who live on the bottom of the ladder get a fair chance at getting exceptionally talented players to change their standard come next season. This hopefully long term will level out teams in a grade and and make the entire standard on average better.
If you want to have your playing roster uninhibited, get yourself recognised as an organisation like the Senators are affiliated under IHACT.
Draft in Summary
- Following of the Rules of Engagement
- Lateral movements fine
- Inability to poach players from other grades
- All players new to a grade must be on a draft list
- Teams can only obtain new to grade players through the draft process
- Draft to be held in person (heck, COVID is over and we should talk in person)
Skills Testing at Draft
The other element to the draft which needs to be done is resumption of a form of skills testing for both safety and speed to give an objective number around a player. This in theory will guide what order the picks should be made, it also manages expectations of players and defines somewhat of a threshold to reach if you want to play in a particular grade. With some long term data we will be able to filter players into their proper level. One element which this testing cannot help with is game sense, this is an element that has to be chanced and perhaps a scrimmage at the draft will help. This testing would be standardised across the whole Association and made clear to new players that the focus is on a competency of safety for yourself and others. It also affords us some data on where the delineations are with players in a crude form.
Draft List
Some of the mechanics for the draft are having a draft list of players who have nominated for the draft and also the ability to pick players from a below league with concessions around whether they come up or not (due to work, family etc.). They would have to give a valid reason for that to stop the sandbagging in a grade. With this list, players who are already in the ACT really don’t need to come along to the scrimmage because they should be known by a variety of teams in the higher grade that they’re wishing to go for. But they would however have to subject themselves to the scrutiny of a skills test so we can benchmark data to validate the claim. Also one game of scrimmage at a draft session probably won’t show the full skill set of a player making the scrimmage a fairly inaccurate tool for assessment.
So overall, that’s the the changes to the draft which are just regulation and enforcement of rules already in effect. It’s not to say team X must take player one and team Y must take player two, it simply gives all the teams a clear opportunity on the player list, afford value to the transfer between teams, and to level up the grades long term, as is the Association’s remit.
Juniors
This one was a fairly brief there’s there’s two points which reoccur for the seniors as well. First point for the juniors was scheduling of not knowing when a game is on or not and having to find out on Friday what you’re doing on the weekend is untenable for families. So this one, the board with the junior delegates suggestion was we had to solve this problem for the winter season.
The one solution around that is that we will be running games only on Sunday in terms two and three and whenever there is a Brave game on the Sunday there’s no Junior game. This hopefully simplifies for parents and carers just when games and training are on. The junior games will start the Sunday before school term commences and won’t be played on the Sunday for the first or second weekend of school holidays, so as to allow families to head off on holidays. Idea behind this is about attendance and avoiding the massive drop off that we see in the school holidays. Conveniently doing 20 weeks minus the four Brave games at home on a Sunday turns out to 16 weekends which neatly fits for the USA Hockey ADM’s good guidance on how much and how long players should be on the ice each week. Juniors
There were also questions for the juniors around extra practices which we are looking into and factoring for the costings of the upcoming winter season. This is a possibility and it’s not a confirmed action at the minute but has also been raised by Seniors. Organising the running an IHACT school holiday program is on the agenda for our next board meeting on the 23rd of February 2023.
Playing Up policy possibly requires updating
A third point regarding juniors was the ability to have a clear playing into grades policy. For kids who don’t want to play C grade in the Phoenix, what is the policy around their admission to add on a senior grade and what ages are allowed. This question is a long term solve and needs further thought which the board has previously commenced on, a document explaining the reasoning behind the playing up policy should be provided for guidance and avoidance of confusion. This playing policy also feeds into the aspiration to change D grade into a fully fledged league and to drop the development tag from it (the standard is so good, well done to you all).
Seniors
Seniors had two main points, the first one was they would like extra practices as a proper programme, not just team training, but some form of power skating and skill sessions to allow individual development. The other minor perception which came across was the feeling of the association only caring about developing the junior cohort with a proper training programme, so I can understand that perception.
Individual Training Blocks
For training with the senior cohort, the responses or issues surrounding that were the ability to opt out of training due to work or financial costs. A solution to this would be short intense development programs for senior players, such as looking at obtaining the Tuesday and Thursday morning slots exclusively for Ice Hockey ACT registered players. What time of the week is not the question at the minute, the first step is to develop the structure of how it should run in frequency, duration for the sessions individually and the program itself as a whole. 2 sessions per week over 5 weeks could be the structure most effective for players, but we will endeavour to liaise with members in developing and refining the program.
Accessibility for new players
The other thing which was raised for player training and development were come and try days, which we see as the first step into becoming a player. The second step would be a development camp or a development pathway where you would be able to come along and develop your skills before getting picked up to play for a team.
These are all issues that we are looking at working on at the minute. That was the broad view on training and player development. Entry of new players, some of the points that raised were around the absence of equipment. That one has been commenced already, which I mentioned in the newsletter previously for any secondhand equipment that people are willing to donate. What this program is for is to have a full kit that a player can borrow so they can come along and try it, play a season and slowly accumulate their own gear.
A learn to play membership or a development membership is minimal and cost close to zero dollars which IHA has recently implemented. So trying to break down all those barriers of financial cost and then also having consistent programmes or consistent spaces where players can build their skills as they want to on their own will be a focus of the board.
Outcome → Accrual of second hand gear to loan full sets to new players for a season.
Development Program into D Grade
One (President’s) idea is to create a term 3 adult development program for new players. Over ten weeks run twice per week skating and game play sessions to develop enough skill and pace to enter into D or Women’s. This allows D grade to be a full on grade and not the development catch all for adult male players. It also opens a prospect of juniors being able to play in 3 different grades.
New Player Information
Another point for starting of new players is that it’s hard to find information. This is slowly being worked on by the website being rejigged and revamped with information and we’ll look at that one again. Advertising for come and try days to have more lead time and aiming to get more public into the sport with some of the miscellaneous comments raised towards advertising for new players.
Grade Specific Responses
Now on to the what he would say the regular grades, we’ve got B, C, D, and Women’s who overall gave consistent points. There was consistency of scheduling for all grades that made it awkward for some players to attend random nights. Inconsistency of the scoring duties was with some teams not lifting their finger to help. Time blocking to avoid being being forced out earlier than what we need to, someone raised the idea of increasing games to an hour and a quarter with 20 minute periods.
Rotating the timeslots
A rotation of the playing time slots to give B and C giving equal chance to absorb the horrible times. They’re all suggestions might I add but I can confirm we will send out the schedule as early as possible. Schedule is being worked on and the scheduler slash senior delegate has already assigned games through to June which we are going over again to make sure fit properly, on the assumption that all all teams will be returning.
Seniors views on juniors
Previously mentioned, the ability for juniors to play in senior grades. Now that one is a contentious area where there’s a lot of different viewpoints on it. Some think that juniors should have the chance to play up through senior grades if they’re willing to do it. So to address this properly, we have a review of the Junior Programme which is going well but has taken longer than anticipated, though it will give a substantial reference and review for the board.
If juniors want to play and are accepted by a team in a senior grade, they should be able to play and develop a lot faster. There are also benefits of how long players stay in the sport if they are exposed to senior hockey at an earlier age, team hockey is where all the fun is at.
Weekend games for socialising
Another idea raised was the benefits of playing Friday or Saturday games in semi regular fashion for the socialising aspect with the team afterwards, which seems to be a common theme across all the people here. Players want to hang out with their teammates on a conducive evening.
Three game finals series
Another suggestion was for three game finals series that possible. Just up to the team’s of whether they want to do it or not because of the cost impact.
Toxicity & Homophobia
Sadly, there were a couple of responses which claimed a toxic culture and homophobic slurs being thrown thrown around. So just to be clear, this will not be tolerated at all. Toxic culture may be a particular team or player’s perception of their teammates, which is not really something that the board can control, that is an internal management question. The only thing the board can really control is how toxic or how nasty games get through the officiating, which has received quite good responses. I don’t think is the issue, I think the toxic claim may be internal politics amongst a few particular teams.
Homophobic slurs were raised and won’t be tolerated. Full stop. The right to play a sport without being vilified for your sexuality is a basic human right. Removing someones dignity of being able to play sport will probably result in seeing yourself being removed. So in short to whoever made it count yourself lucky, because I have nothing to go on and I don’t wish to pursue it any further. Just take it as given that Ice Hockey ACT has zero tolerance for this.
Women’s League
Next one to go on with is the Women’s League which had about 15 responses. Some positive vibes coming out of the Women’s League with one issue of the late finishes and going out to a dark carpark was about the only concern that the women’s responses gave, which can be easily solved. The team balancing was viewed in a positive light and so reinforcing the requirement to reach a certain skating proficiency before being able to play. Proficiency not to keep players out at an artificial level but so that people can enjoy themselves once they get playing, so you’re not a pylon and someone is going around you and you’re in a world of hurt.
D Grade
D Grade was a mix of positive and negative responses. A lot of people really enjoying the consistency of one night a week, and an even distribution of early middle and late games. That the league has levelled out was the view of some people, which was contradicted by the view of several others who said some teams are really stacked and doesn’t give an opportunity for a good battle when they know they’re going to lose before they even step on the ice.
Draft Transparency, Dev Grade & E Grade
Questions around the transparency of the draft mostly have originated from D Grade responses, which is understandable due to the desire of a lot of players to get up out of what’s deemed as the development grade. This view of D grade being a development grade can be changed if we introduce a development option underneath. Having an E grade that could run through term 3 (last half of winter) then leads into summer Women’s & D grade. Then if players are so inclined if they progress fast enough they could then move up into C grade the following winter.
Aggressive players on one team
There were some concerning complaints about one team being overly aggressive which has since been addressed by the board after a few complaints were lodged and I see that issue as solved. So in between the development, view of D grade and some of the standards of players, the top of the tree who should probably move up a grade, D grade was quite positive.
The action items will solve many concerns for D grade, one being the development of an E grade and a more rigid draft process.
B is for Beer Grade
There were differing views on certain points in B grade. There was no one consistent response to their concerns amongs the 16 respondents. Some of the internal views were the inadequacy of roster sizes so you have disparate numbers players. There was some desire to play during the week but also conversely, there was the desire to stay playing on Sunday in the current slot so there’s no clear direction here. It was also noted of more consistent skills between teams now.
It won’t solve that question completely but running the draft, or being able to select good players in a reverse order may in part level out the teams over multiple seasons. Some of the the other concerns or more logistical issues were the inability to play a full season due to home/work/Brave commitments.
Changes to the weekday schedule change the dynamic of who is available to play, my view is that having it on a week day to allow for AIHL caliber players to play makes the games more skilled which as the finals games last year showed when all players are available the standard is exceptional. Also on a weekday you obtain a consistent roster. This has a knock on effect to make lower grades more competitive too as players move down into C, which raises the standard there. Or, we could have more teams in B grade. There is a multiplicity of options here.
Officiating
Leaving the good till last, most of the comments around officiating were very positive and it’s good to hear what people had to say about the officials. The prevailing view was that everybody appreciates the referees, there were no strong complaints that they were inept or lacking. The only point raised was of the consistency between the calls made by referees, what this was getting at was that about every half dozen games, you’d get a referee who would just completely slow the game down and turn it into a frequent penalty game, which made the game unenjoyable.
The other issue was around why we need a four man system on a rink which was only four fifths the size of an NHL rink. This one I have already communicated to the referee in chief and that will be looked at for coming in to winter 2023.
Conclusion
In conclusion, thank you for your responses. I’ve listed all of the things that I think we can act on now before winter and the board has seen the responses with a number of redactions for anybody who could be identified.
Some of the things that will need a little bit more thought and some of the things that maybe we just can’t fix at all and it’s just something that we have to put up with. So again, I thank you for responding. The information given was hugely informative, and also I’m really impressed by how many people responded full stop.
Thankyou,
Adrian Miller
President
Ice Hockey ACT
