Jump to content

Hockey Guy

we are 'the leading edge' I Share on HSO
  • Content Count

    253
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About Hockey Guy

  • Rank
    Sr HotSpotOutdoors.com Family

Profile Information

  • Location:
    Lakeville, MN
  1. I've had 12 different motorcycles over the years. I've had everything from big V-Twins to sport-bikes, but I went eight years without a bike while the kids were young. I kept making payments to myself just so I could buy whatever I wanted when I finally decided to purchase another one. I looked long and hard at everything out there, but I found myself asking why I can't find a bike with a good combination of reliability, comfort, handling, the versatility to add touring bags when I wanted, and crazy fast horse-power. Why doesn't anyone make anything like the V65 Magna I had in high school? So, I went out and found one with low miles (10,000) and tore it all apart over the winter. I replaced every wearable part I could think of. New hoses, seals, gaskets, wiring, pumps, etc… Then I rebuilt the calipers, master cylinders, and installed stainless steel brake lines. I just love the "What the" looks I get from the kids on their sport-bikes when I beat them off from light to light!!! So I call this my New 1985 Honda V65 Magna.
  2. I hate to get technical here, but actually the traffic cameras per se were not found to be unconstitutional. The issue with the traffic cameras was that people figured out that you do have a constitutional right to face your accuser and cross examine them in a court of law. Since you obviously can’t cross examine a camera, the government realized that the word on this would eventually get out to the general public and everyone would just take the citation to court and it would be dismissed. I know, splitting hairs… Anyhow, I would just like to say that it is interesting to see how the public opinion on this topic has shifted over the last few months. It seems to me that there are a lot of people that have turned against this law but when it was first brought up there were far more people for it. I have even noticed some people on this site do a complete 180. What concerns me is that it took the “nuisance factor” to increase in order for people to change their opinion of the law. Then there are people such as myself, Truth Walleyes, James R, and some others that knew from the start that AIS doesn’t have anything to do with why we should all be fighting this law. I get the impression that some of you wouldn’t have a problem with this law at all if you were only pulled over for five minutes or less and then you were on your way. I hope for the future sake of this country that people start to look at government intervention in the context of whether the limited powers granted to the government by state and federal constitutions is being overstepped or not…
  3. For all you guys that argued with me about this topic three months ago and told me I should sell my boat or stop fishing if I don't like the new laws, I want you to read James' comments closely! He is right on the money. I told you there are always unintended consequences to government involvement and we haven't even started the dam program yet! We cannot give up our individual liberties just because we think it’s beneficial to a cause we believe in. The government will always inevitably turn that power grab into precedence for an all-out assault on the freedoms you do care about!! This is just the beginning...
  4. Oh, where to begin??? First of all as I stated in previous posts, it absolutely amazes me how many of you are willing to give up your constitutional rights that were paid for with blood of thousands. Our forefathers created a constitution that was drafted with the intension to give the government “Limited” powers. Now I know this is a state issue, but the MN constitution does mimic the Federal constitution in many ways and is even superseded by the Federal constitution on issues of illegal searches and travel on Federal roadways or travel across state lines. The bottom line to me is that no agency should have the POWER to pull you over without probable cause. If the State of MN wants to draft a law that we cannot travel with weeds hanging off our boats, and that law is passed due to votes by our elected representatives, then so be it. If someone is driving down the road with weeds hanging off of their boat pull them over and give them a ticket. I’m just saying that they have no right to pull me over without probable cause just because I’m pulling a boat any more than they can pull me over for having thinning blonde hair! Now I believe that the original question of this post, 35 pages ago, was, “does anyone have any other ideas?” Well, how about this: Get the Federal and State governments out of this issue with the exception of enforcement of the law I stated above. Then instead of the $600,000,000 they are talking about to increase personnel, purchase equipment, and perform unconstitutional roadside checks, they can allow the free-market to fix this problem the same as it does for everything else. No research grants that get abused, no tax-payer subsidies, or government involvement in any way. Just the genuine free-market with a state sponsored $1,000,000 reward for anyone that comes up with a way to kill only the AIS specified. The reward money should come from the lottery, private donations, and fund-raising projects. The reward would just be the tip of the iceberg for the company that holds the patent on such technology. They would be able to sell their product to other states and even possibly modify the technology for other applications. One thing we should all know by now is that government involvement is only going to absolutely guarantee one thing; Unintended Consequences! Just like their solution years ago to pull the milfoil out. They pulled the milfoil out alright, along with all the other vegetation that was keeping the milfoil in check. What grew back in its place???
  5. I just wanted to show you all that I am a rational man by saying that the state tournament was great hockey. I thought the refs did an excellent job calling that tournament. The first few games I saw a couple of obvious dives and the refs didn't call a penalty at all. Personally I would like to see the obvious dives called for unsportsmanlike conduct on the player that dives, but at least not calling anything is a step in the right direction. I think the word got out, or was at least observed, that the refs weren’t calling that stuff because later games had very few dives. I even saw a few players try to call “timeout” by turning their backs and the refs didn’t call penalties when the player was hit in the back. I would actually say it was exactly the opposite of all the high school games I went to toward the end of the regular season. It was refreshing for this hockey fan to see.
  6. Lakeville looked like a completely different team! How in the world does that happen?
  7. I've watched every game so far and IMO the best team has been Eagan, but they have one seriously weak link in that chain. Other than Eagan I would say the most impressive team was Lakeville. There is a lot of skill and speed on that team. I think they are motivated by all the pregame Kloos hype. If you listen to the media and Lou Nanne, you would think that Kloos is the only guy on the team! I totally agree with Bartman, some of those consolation games would be awesome to watch! Everyone of those teams will be playing with a huge chip on their shoulders.
  8. BTW - that was the first time I have seen Lakeville play this year. They have a lot of talented players on that team. Listening to the pregame hype you would think that it was going to be Kloos out there by himself. The kid is fast though eh?
  9. Is it just me or does this BMS/Edina game look like they are playing at half speed after watching the Lakeville/DE game?
  10. It doesn't have to be pairwise, but there has to be a way to get the best teams in the state playing in the state tournament. Don't you think?
  11. Wow, I feel bad for the Eagan kids right now. They looked to me like twice the team with half the goalie. But, it’s a team sport. What do you do? I would personally love to see the MSHSL figure out a way to eliminate sections. I know, I know, I’ve heard all the arguments about why they have to keep them, but I just feel that the State Tournament should be a showcase of the best of the best in the state. When you have five teams in the same section that are all ranked in the top ten in the state, it just doesn’t seem right to me. Then you get to the state tournament and you have blowouts. Big school, little school, recruiting, not recruiting, metro, outstate… All that has it’s place and good arguments. I would just like to see a pairwise ranking or something to get the top 16 teams in the state from either class A or AA to compete in the greatest showcase of high school talent in the country.
  12. I love the old school cats eye cages. They were heavy though. I remember having one on my Northland and ProTec. This is what I use now in my old man leagues. It's really light and I don't even notice I have a mask on. I tried everything before I found this one: http://www.hsolist.com/itm/Cat-Eye-Hockey-Cage-New-Old-School-Cage-/190563932507
  13. Hockey BC 69 - Did you read my posts before you type something I didn't say or even imply? You have all my posts right here in front of you. Show me where in the world I said Jabs did anything other than what he was trained to do. Don’t be putting words in my mouth when they are all right here for anyone to read! I said that he was never taught to expect a hit to come from behind and he didn’t know how to protect himself. I even said that it’s NOT the fault of the players that turn their backs or get hurt because that’s how they learned the game. So you think that it’s alright for the side that holds the view of adding rules and taking out hitting to use Jabs' name every time you turn around but if I use it as an example to counter them that’s disgusting??? Wow, I guess we will agree to disagree. And, if you think it’s a bad idea to teach kids to protect themselves and reward them for turning their backs to the play so be it. That’s your opinion. But don’t be posting that I said something I never said!!!
  14. I already explained what I meant by checking in Mites on the previous page. It’s not about teaching Mite players how to hit as much as it is about teaching them to keep their heads up and prepare for being hit by other kids that may be out of control or just trying to get the puck. It’s never too early to teach kids how to take a hit. I agree that the players are all getting stronger, bigger, and faster, but the main point there is that they are ALL getting bigger, stronger, and faster! If you teach them to be aware of their surroundings, how to take a hit, and how to protect themselves it shouldn’t matter how big the other player is because they should be prepared for it. It’s funny to me that most of the comments that I’m getting from people I think only prove my point more. If I guy that is big and strong is chasing me into a corner I’m sure as heck not going to turn my back to him unless I’m prepared to get hit. Even if I’m getting hit by accident because the other guy can’t stop or is off balance. That’s just plain insane as far as I’m concerned. And seriously, was it really that bad for kids to just admit that maybe they’re just too small to play the sport? That happens in football and basketball all the time. Why does hockey need to be the poster sport for the “everyone gets to participate sport”. I hear that from people all the time. Something like, “we need to take the hitting out of the game so the smaller, more skilled type players can compete on a more level playing field.” I just don’t get that. Maybe it’s because I’m getting old, but if someone wants to go start the Obama Hockey League where everything is fair be my guest. Maybe they can have a rule against toe-drags by any player over six feet tall because they have an unfair reach advantage. And please someone that grew up playing in the 80’s back me up that players now don’t have a sense of their surroundings in open ice. They have their heads down looking back for passes and right when they get the puck they get smoked. I’ve seen so many suicide passes being made the last few years at every level. When I was around that high school age we wouldn’t have even made that pass because the teammate we passed it to probably would have flipped us off on the spot! There is very little sense of danger or the realization that they can get hurt, and personally I attribute that to not being trained that the possibility of getting smoked is a very real one. Talk about a concussion waiting to happen. The refs should give the penalty to the player that made the suicide pass. IMO, the diving is major contributor to the safety of players as well. Diving is nothing more than an overall disrespect for the game. That disrespect for the game causes an overall disrespect amongst players. That overall disrespect amongst players causes more cheapshots and hit’s to the head. The cheapshots and hits to the head causes more concussions or other injuries, which leads to more retribution from teammates and so on. I remember when it used to be disgraceful to lay on the ice or get knocked down. Wasn’t it Doug Gilmore that took the shot off his leg, then he got right up and made his way over to the bench where it was discovered that he had a broken leg? Guys like Avery and Matt Cooke don’t help the respect amongst the players either. This isn’t basketball, keep your lip-jacking to yourself or drop the gloves. And no Pierre, I didn’t write the article. I would love to write something or get my chance to talk about this where it matters, but everyone always has the knee-jerk reaction to take something out of the games or add more rules in order to make it better instead of just enforcing the rules that are there. I can tell you that there is a growing number of coaches that feel the same way I do, but the parents that influence USA Hockey are always right there to hold up a picture of Jack Jablonski or other injured players in order to argue for more rules. Again, I would hold up Jack’s picture and argue that he should have been taught to expect a hit and even if the player that hit him committed a penalty, he still would have been expecting to get hit. I never took it for granted that other players were going to follow the rules if I was in a potentially dangerous situation anyhow. If that were the case we wouldn’t need refs at all. I agree with the article you posted about hitting after the whistle though. Anyone that touches anyone after the whistle should get the gate no matter what the reason. I’ve never understood why that is let go.
×
×
  • Create New...