Mailing List Archives

Parent
From: email@hidden
Message-ID: 
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 06:51:09 EDT
Subject: USA age classifications
To: email@hidden
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: email@hidden
Errors-To: email@hidden
Precedence: bulk
	
List-Id: A mailing list for women who play hockey and people involved in women's hockey 
List-Unsubscribe: ,
	
List-Archive: 

I was wondering if anyone was aware of girls' age classification that was 
different from the traditional ages for mites. squirts, pee wee's.  Someone 
said that girls' ages were a bit different allowing them to play in, for 
instance, squirts a bit longer than a boy would be allowed to.   
Need this info if anyone has it ASAP. Thanks!!!
Dee

Received: from mail.rdc2.bc.home.com (ha1.rdc2.bc.wave.home.com
  [24.2.10.68]) by plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id
  f39Ds9i21009 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001
  06:54:09 -0700
Received: from cs656486a ([24.67.216.49]) by mail.rdc2.bc.home.com
  (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id
  <20010409140049.EWBM8219.mail.rdc2.bc.home.com@cs656486a> for
  ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 07:00:49 -0700
Message-ID: <001201c0c0fd$854f4ec0$email@hidden>
From: "Phil Cottrell" 
To: "women-in-hockey" 
References: 
Subject: Re: Women's Hockey Worlds- Gold Medal Game
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 07:01:05 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
Sender: email@hidden
Errors-To: email@hidden
X-BeenThere: email@hidden
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: 
List-Post: 
List-Subscribe: ,
	
List-Id: A mailing list for women who play hockey and people involved in women's hockey 
List-Unsubscribe: ,
	
List-Archive: 

Well, another year, another great Gold Medal game between the only two teams
in the tournament...

The cause of recognition and international appreciation of women's hockey
wasn't advanced too much by this tournament, what with preliminary round
scores between Canada/USA and their Group opposition being something like
78-2. Still hard for sports editors, networks etc. to get excited about
anything except the inevitable final between the big powers. Other nations
are being left further behind, but it was good to see Russia nicking the
bronze.

On the subject of networks, a big thank you to TSN for extending the
coverage for quite some time after the game. I don't know if they had tons
of time to fill, but the post game interviews/shenanigans were lots of fun,
especially watching Paul R. get doused by champagne and the Team Canada
characters mugging for the cameras. And yes, this is one of the joys of
women's sports generally, they haven't yet been spoiled by professionalism
and "characters" are allowed to flourish. At least they are on Team
Canada...I suspect there are similar folk on USA, but their Gulag training
system keeps them well out of the public eye except for Mia Hamm type public
service announcements :)

Roll on the Olympics and get better soon, Hayley!

Received: from imo-m10.mx.aol.com (imo-m10.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.165])
  by plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f39EDpi21850 for
  ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 07:13:51 -0700
Received: from email@hidden by imo-m10.mx.aol.com
  (mail_out_v29.14.) id b.70.9695370 (15899); Mon, 9 Apr 2001 10:20:22
  -0400 (EDT)
Received: from  web48.aolmail.aol.com (web48.aolmail.aol.com
  [205.188.161.9]) by air-id09.mx.aol.com (v77_r1.37) with ESMTP; Mon,
  09 Apr 2001 10:20:22 -0400
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 10:20:21 EDT
From: email@hidden
Subject: Re: USA age classifications
To: , 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version)
Message-ID: 
Sender: email@hidden
Errors-To: email@hidden
X-BeenThere: email@hidden
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: 
List-Post: 
List-Subscribe: ,
	
List-Id: A mailing list for women who play hockey and people involved in women's hockey 
List-Unsubscribe: ,
	
List-Archive: 

In a message dated Mon, 9 Apr 2001  6:54:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time, email@hidden writes:

<< I was wondering if anyone was aware of girls' age classification that was 
different from the traditional ages for mites. squirts, pee wee's.  Someone 
said that girls' ages were a bit different allowing them to play in, for 
instance, squirts a bit longer than a boy would be allowed to.   
Need this info if anyone has it ASAP. Thanks!!!
Dee  >>

     The age classifications for girls' teams are different, but, if a girl is competing on a youth team, she follows the same classification as the boys do. For teams competing in the girl's classification, the age groups are 19 & under, 15 & under, 12 & under, and 10 & under. The date of determination is also different for girls: at midnight on 12/31 of the current playing season. For youth teams, the date is June 30 preceding the current season, and the classifications are 17 & under (midget), 14 & under (bantam), 12 & under (peewee), 10 & under (squirt), and 8 & under (mite).   

Received: from smtp1.cybersurf.net (smtp1.cybersurf.net
  [209.197.145.111]) by plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id
  f39GmOi29318 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001
  09:48:24 -0700
Received: from demo4 ([209.197.166.11]) by smtp1.cybersurf.net (Netscape
  Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GBJAZG00.0TO; Mon, 9 Apr 2001
  10:54:52 -0600 
Message-ID: <00fe01c0c115$e0c73700$email@hidden>
From: "Vivian Kwok" 
To: , 
References: 
Subject: Re: Women's Hockey Worlds- Gold Medal Game
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 12:32:20 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
Sender: email@hidden
Errors-To: email@hidden
X-BeenThere: email@hidden
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: 
List-Post: 
List-Subscribe: ,
	
List-Id: A mailing list for women who play hockey and people involved in women's hockey 
List-Unsubscribe: ,
	
List-Archive: 

Didn't you just love the physical play over there? Hockey is emotional and
we should be allowed to show it.

Gen

----- Original Message -----
From: 
To: 
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 11:50 PM
Subject: Women's Hockey Worlds- Gold Medal Game


>      Boy am I a sore loser!! Team USA far out-shot Team Canada (38-18, or
something) but Kim St-Pierre was just a wall out there! We'd come directly
from watching the Colorado Avalanche beat the Wild, and my 10-year-old son
wondered if Patrick Roy had followed us, and was inside that jersey #33,
too. But I do have to complain that the Canadians were getting away with
murder! I think the referee had a French name; could it be she was Canadian,
too?? Yes, she did for some reason call a richly deserved hold with 1:26 to
play, but why did she wait till then? The clutching and grabbing in the
third period looked like the NHL. Then, she called an undeserved penalty
(make-up??) right after the goal to put the US team short-handed at the end
and prevent the 6 on 5 that might have tied it! Like I said, what a sore
loser!! Be that as it may, St. Pierre deserves all the credit in the world,
and the goals Canada did get were sweet. It was a good tournament, anyway.
>      Finland's streak is over, and the Russians did get a medal. That
seemed likely as the tournament went on; they were the only other team to
score on either the US or Canada. Obviously, I missed that game; my son's
Squirt team got tickets for the last Wild game of the season. Attendance
still wasn't what it should have been; 5632 for the final in an arena that
seats over 14,000. There was a big Timberwolves game with the Lakers in town
as well as the Wild, but it could have been better. I don't know a lot of
women's hockey celebrities by sight, but I did recognise Laura Halldorson of
the Gophers and Shannon Miller of Minnesota-Duluth.
> _______________________________________________
> women-in-hockey mailing list
> email@hidden
> http://www.hockeyfanz.com/mailman/listinfo/women-in-hockey

Received: from goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net
  (goose.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.18] (may be forged)) by
  plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f39KVgi10323 for
  ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 13:31:42 -0700
Received: from earthlink.net (sdn-ar-001papittP302.dialsprint.net
  [168.191.212.40]) by goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3)
  with ESMTP id NAA09238 for ; Mon, 9
  Apr 2001 13:38:20 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: 
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 16:38:50 -0400
From: Ken 
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: email@hidden
Subject: Team USA and centralization.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: email@hidden
Errors-To: email@hidden
X-BeenThere: email@hidden
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: 
List-Post: 
List-Subscribe: ,
	
List-Id: A mailing list for women who play hockey and people involved in women's hockey 
List-Unsubscribe: ,
	
List-Archive: 

Is it just me or do others think that centralizing Team USA to train in
Lake Placid might be a bad idea? Maybe all the time training (7 months)
basically in "nowhereland" is taking it's toll on the players. Not being
able to interact with family and friends regularly, or having a 'normal'
life, plus playing scrub teams as opponents, seems like it may be taking
it's toll on the team in the end. Team Canada gets together 2 weeks
prior and it seems they are enthused, organized, and fired up to play
together. Team USA did look good yesterday in their systems but does
anyone think that their being together for so long could actually be
hurting the girls or possibly be burning them out come do or die time?

Opinions?

K.R.

Received: from mail.rdc2.bc.home.com (ha1.rdc2.bc.wave.home.com
  [24.2.10.68]) by plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id
  f39NgGi18663 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001
  16:42:16 -0700
Received: from cs656486a ([24.67.216.49]) by mail.rdc2.bc.home.com
  (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id
  <20010409234857.FUAH8219.mail.rdc2.bc.home.com@cs656486a> for
  ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 16:48:57 -0700
Message-ID: <002901c0c14f$ac85c940$email@hidden>
From: "Phil Cottrell" 
To: 
References: 
Subject: Re: Team USA and centralization.
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 16:49:10 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
Sender: email@hidden
Errors-To: email@hidden
X-BeenThere: email@hidden
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: 
List-Post: 
List-Subscribe: ,
	
List-Id: A mailing list for women who play hockey and people involved in women's hockey 
List-Unsubscribe: ,
	
List-Archive: 

"Ken" said:

> Is it just me or do others think that centralizing Team USA to train in
Lake Placid might be a bad idea?

Well, all the Canadian announcers emphasized that Team Canada was looking
forward to getting together full-time in preparation for the Olympics, "just
like the Americans".

But if you ask me, I think that people would get terribly stale living and
playing together (with no viable opposition) in the back of beyond for
months at a time. Internal bickering, flu epidemics, relationships beginning
and ending (not that there's anything wrong with that!) and so on.

But really, this game was won by a hot Canuck goalie and some opportunistic
deflections. Team USA looked very strong, so I don't think a single 3-2 loss
is grounds for changing a whole program.

Phil