Anthony Angello and team disqualified by scheduling error

[Tcl123]

Force them to watch every power play we have had this year? That's punishment in itself.

[ugarte]

Ugarte's right, though, that any punishment will in some ways affect somebody who's innocent. If you fine the adult responsible, his family will have less money; is it fair to take away their Christmas because of what he did? If you fine the school, they'll have less money; is it fair to cut the athletic budget, possibly affecting kids in some other sport entirely, for what the adults did? If you fire the adult(s) responsible, not only will their families be greatly affected, but the hockey team may also be if they have to deal with an interim coach or such.

So the question isn't how to eliminate the effect a punishment has on innocent people, but rather how to make that effect be as temporary and non-serious as possible. Firing somebody doesn't seem like it fits those goals; having students miss a tournament seems reasonable. There may be an even better solution, but I don't think the one they went on is obviously wrong.

Since the kids did nothing wrong, and the adult(s) responsible did (if we can even pin this on one or more adults), I'd rather punish them.  In the case of, say, a fine, then yeah, his or her family will have less money.  But that logic could be used to argue against any fine, ever.

I'm not really sure of a better way to punish people.  Beatings are frowned upon.  Maybe a very, very, very stern talking to?  Force them to watch bad movies?

It is an institutional error so the kids affiliated with the school are going to take it on the chin. That's how this works. When Penn State ignored a rapist preying on kids for decades, the athletes in 2012 bore the penalty along with the school. The students suffer because THE SCHOOL is not allowed to benefit after being found guilty of breaking the rules. Unless you want to let the kids play as an unaffiliated group of ruffians,* they can't compete in the playoffs. Stop being babies about this.


* This is a stupid idea.

[Jim Hyla]

Ugarte's right, though, that any punishment will in some ways affect somebody who's innocent. If you fine the adult responsible, his family will have less money; is it fair to take away their Christmas because of what he did? If you fine the school, they'll have less money; is it fair to cut the athletic budget, possibly affecting kids in some other sport entirely, for what the adults did? If you fire the adult(s) responsible, not only will their families be greatly affected, but the hockey team may also be if they have to deal with an interim coach or such.

So the question isn't how to eliminate the effect a punishment has on innocent people, but rather how to make that effect be as temporary and non-serious as possible. Firing somebody doesn't seem like it fits those goals; having students miss a tournament seems reasonable. There may be an even better solution, but I don't think the one they went on is obviously wrong.

Since the kids did nothing wrong, and the adult(s) responsible did (if we can even pin this on one or more adults), I'd rather punish them.  In the case of, say, a fine, then yeah, his or her family will have less money.  But that logic could be used to argue against any fine, ever.

I'm not really sure of a better way to punish people.  Beatings are frowned upon.  Maybe a very, very, very stern talking to?  Force them to watch bad movies?

It is an institutional error so the kids affiliated with the school are going to take it on the chin. That's how this works. When Penn State ignored a rapist preying on kids for decades, the athletes in 2012 bore the penalty along with the school. The students suffer because THE SCHOOL is not allowed to benefit after being found guilty of breaking the rules. Unless you want to let the kids play as an unaffiliated group of ruffians,* they can't compete in the playoffs. Stop being babies about this.


* This is a stupid idea.

Wow thanks, at last I now know that I'm the oldest baby around. Guess what, I can take a difference of opinion. The Penn State analogy doesn't quite hold up since the institution got penalized, the adults got penalized, and yes, unfortunately because of penalizing the institution some students also had to take it. The difference here was the entire penalty went to the non-responsible party. Hopefully you can see the difference; if not, then I guess I'm through with this.

[billhoward]

Ugarte is right. It may sound good -- "why should the kids suffer for what adults did to screw up" -- but implementing adults-only punishment is close to impossible.

[ftyuv]

Since A did nothing wrong, and B did..., I'd rather punish B.  In the case of, say, a fine, then yeah, C will [also suffer].  But that logic could be used to argue against any [punishment], ever.

This is kinda my point, actually. There is always a C that suffers in some way when you punish B, so you can't use that as an excuse not to punish B unless you never punish anyone. The argument against cancelling the tournament essentially boils down to adding a constraint that A != C. So my question really comes down to, why is that a necessary constraint?

Edit: I should add that in my eyes, banning the school from participating in the tournament hurts the school, coaches and other staff in addition to the students. Maybe that's the source of the disagreement -- some people don't view this as hurting anyone except the students.

[Al DeFlorio]

Force them to watch every power play we have had this year? That's punishment in itself.

+1::rock::

[ugarte]

Ugarte's right, though, that any punishment will in some ways affect somebody who's innocent. If you fine the adult responsible, his family will have less money; is it fair to take away their Christmas because of what he did? If you fine the school, they'll have less money; is it fair to cut the athletic budget, possibly affecting kids in some other sport entirely, for what the adults did? If you fire the adult(s) responsible, not only will their families be greatly affected, but the hockey team may also be if they have to deal with an interim coach or such.

So the question isn't how to eliminate the effect a punishment has on innocent people, but rather how to make that effect be as temporary and non-serious as possible. Firing somebody doesn't seem like it fits those goals; having students miss a tournament seems reasonable. There may be an even better solution, but I don't think the one they went on is obviously wrong.

Since the kids did nothing wrong, and the adult(s) responsible did (if we can even pin this on one or more adults), I'd rather punish them.  In the case of, say, a fine, then yeah, his or her family will have less money.  But that logic could be used to argue against any fine, ever.

I'm not really sure of a better way to punish people.  Beatings are frowned upon.  Maybe a very, very, very stern talking to?  Force them to watch bad movies?

It is an institutional error so the kids affiliated with the school are going to take it on the chin. That's how this works. When Penn State ignored a rapist preying on kids for decades, the athletes in 2012 bore the penalty along with the school. The students suffer because THE SCHOOL is not allowed to benefit after being found guilty of breaking the rules. Unless you want to let the kids play as an unaffiliated group of ruffians,* they can't compete in the playoffs. Stop being babies about this.


* This is a stupid idea.

Wow thanks, at last I now know that I'm the oldest baby around. Guess what, I can take a difference of opinion. The Penn State analogy doesn't quite hold up since the institution got penalized, the adults got penalized, and yes, unfortunately because of penalizing the institution some students also had to take it. The difference here was the entire penalty went to the non-responsible party. Hopefully you can see the difference; if not, then I guess I'm through with this.

Do you think the coaches don't want to coach in the playoffs? That the administrators didn't want to see the school advance? The penalty went to THE SCHOOL. The SCHOOL can not advance into the playoffs. The students AT THAT SCHOOL suffer along with THE SCHOOL.

[Dafatone]

Since A did nothing wrong, and B did..., I'd rather punish B.  In the case of, say, a fine, then yeah, C will [also suffer].  But that logic could be used to argue against any [punishment], ever.

This is kinda my point, actually. There is always a C that suffers in some way when you punish B, so you can't use that as an excuse not to punish B unless you never punish anyone. The argument against cancelling the tournament essentially boils down to adding a constraint that A != C. So my question really comes down to, why is that a necessary constraint?

Edit: I should add that in my eyes, banning the school from participating in the tournament hurts the school, coaches and other staff in addition to the students. Maybe that's the source of the disagreement -- some people don't view this as hurting anyone except the students.

If the rule is "no tournament if you play in too many games," and the school played in too many games, then yeah, no tournament.  But I still think they should find the person(s) responsible and punish them separately, by making them write "I will not schedule a 21st game" 100 times on a blackboard or something.

[ftyuv]

Since A did nothing wrong, and B did..., I'd rather punish B.  In the case of, say, a fine, then yeah, C will [also suffer].  But that logic could be used to argue against any [punishment], ever.

This is kinda my point, actually. There is always a C that suffers in some way when you punish B, so you can't use that as an excuse not to punish B unless you never punish anyone. The argument against cancelling the tournament essentially boils down to adding a constraint that A != C. So my question really comes down to, why is that a necessary constraint?

Edit: I should add that in my eyes, banning the school from participating in the tournament hurts the school, coaches and other staff in addition to the students. Maybe that's the source of the disagreement -- some people don't view this as hurting anyone except the students.

If the rule is "no tournament if you play in too many games," and the school played in too many games, then yeah, no tournament.  But I still think they should find the person(s) responsible and punish them separately, by making them write "I will not schedule a 21st game" 100 times on a blackboard or something.

Sure, but that seems like a punishment the school can/should dole out to the people responsible, as additional punishment and retribution (as it were) for the punishment that the school suffered due to their actions.

League punishes school, school punishes coach. That sounds right to me.

[andyw2100]

I agree with Jim and others who think the advisory panel could have come up with something a little less drastic, considering the infraction was relatively minor, and was arguably due to a misunderstanding between the coaches of the teams involved in the "non-scrimmage." For example, perhaps the panel could have allowed the team to play in the playoffs, but moved them down to the lowest seed, or made them play all their games on the road or something along those lines.

The biggest issue for me is how little time and thought the board put into this, as evidenced by the following:

---
The hearing began at about 1 p.m. and lasted for about 30 minutes. The advisory panel then met in closed executive session for about 10 minutes. The decision was announced about 5:30 p.m.
---

Ten minutes? That alone is pretty insulting, and doesn't show a great deal of effort on the part of the panel.

[Trotsky]

I agree with Jim and others who think the advisory panel could have come up with something a little less drastic, considering the infraction was relatively minor, and was arguably due to a misunderstanding between the coaches of the teams involved in the "non-scrimmage." For example, perhaps the panel could have allowed the team to play in the playoffs, but moved them down to the lowest seed, or made them play all their games on the road or something along those lines.

The biggest issue for me is how little time and thought the board put into this, as evidenced by the following:

---
The hearing began at about 1 p.m. and lasted for about 30 minutes. The advisory panel then met in closed executive session for about 10 minutes. The decision was announced about 5:30 p.m.
---

Ten minutes? That alone is pretty insulting, and doesn't show a great deal of effort on the part of the panel.

They were late for puppy stomping.

[KeithK]

I agree with Jim and others who think the advisory panel could have come up with something a little less drastic, considering the infraction was relatively minor, and was arguably due to a misunderstanding between the coaches of the teams involved in the "non-scrimmage." For example, perhaps the panel could have allowed the team to play in the playoffs, but moved them down to the lowest seed, or made them play all their games on the road or something along those lines.

Penalties for this kind of infraction are not just about punishing the wrongdoers.  They're also about incentivizing future behavior.  If the only penalty is a lower seed in the tournament that may not be much of a disincentive for someone to do it again.  Maybe a coach thinks playing more games is more valuable than seeding for his squad.

[KeithK]

Ugarte is right. It may sound good -- "why should the kids suffer for what adults did to screw up" -- but implementing adults-only punishment is close to impossible.

There are always collateral effects.  You'd like to minimize them but just because there are some side effects doesn't mean one shouldn't act.

The question here isn't whether you cn punish the adults without hurting the kids at all but whether the penalty punishes the adults at all.  Some make reasonable arguments that it does. I'm not sure.

[upprdeck]

every coach knows the rules and every coach knows how many games they can play. FM knew full well they were pushing the limits

[andyw2100]

I agree with Jim and others who think the advisory panel could have come up with something a little less drastic, considering the infraction was relatively minor, and was arguably due to a misunderstanding between the coaches of the teams involved in the "non-scrimmage." For example, perhaps the panel could have allowed the team to play in the playoffs, but moved them down to the lowest seed, or made them play all their games on the road or something along those lines.

Penalties for this kind of infraction are not just about punishing the wrongdoers.  They're also about incentivizing future behavior.  If the only penalty is a lower seed in the tournament that may not be much of a disincentive for someone to do it again.  Maybe a coach thinks playing more games is more valuable than seeding for his squad.

That's a fair point Keith. But in this case, since it is so easy for a coach to game the system by just making sure the contest qualifies as a scrimmage, and with there apparently being no limitation on the number of these scrimmages, I think all the panel would be incentivising is a more thorough gaming of the system.

And it's this loophole that apparently lets teams play as many contests as they want, as long as no more than 20 are actually "games" that makes me think the penalty was too harsh. I would feel very differently if the rule was something like no more than 20 games and no more than three scrimmages and this was the team's 24th contest, as in that case the violation might have been more meaningful. But in this case the violation would not have been a violation if a couple of "I"s were dotted and "T"s crossed. I guess what I'm getting at is that it was so easy to get around the intent of the rule, that the penalty for not getting around it should not be this severe.

Does that make sense?