Minor Hockey Talks - Hockey Forum

Guest wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2025 7:54 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2025 7:50 pm Im usually against the GTHL and all there internal politics and BS so I was on the side of the Rattlers, but after hearing everything they've gone to the media with today, this is the most arrogant, egotistical, and insufferable parent group I've ever come across. For the players sake I still hope this get cleared up and they make the playoffs, but this disrespectful self-centered parent group really needs to re-think there behavior.

Kids have nothing to do with it the point is don’t punish the kids.

Guest wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2025 8:46 pm So, the initial GTHL ruling involved a one game loss & a 6 game suspension of the trainer in question…and the team appealed that decision?

Not submitting paperwork involving vulnerable sector screening is a HUGE oversight. It’s actually OFFENSIVE, if you realize that vulnerable sector screening is essential in preventing known criminals from having access to children.

Rattlers should have taken the initial single loss/suspension given by the G. Too bad the adults involved had to appeal, I bet the players would have been alright taking the Gs first offer.

Guest wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2025 9:12 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2025 8:46 pm So, the initial GTHL ruling involved a one game loss & a 6 game suspension of the trainer in question…and the team appealed that decision?

Not submitting paperwork involving vulnerable sector screening is a HUGE oversight. It’s actually OFFENSIVE, if you realize that vulnerable sector screening is essential in preventing known criminals from having access to children.

Rattlers should have taken the initial single loss/suspension given by the G. Too bad the adults involved had to appeal, I bet the players would have been alright taking the Gs first offer.

Ummmm the paperwork was submitted. That's the point. So many idiots on here that can't follow the details. Paperwork submitted, including VSC. GTHL admin gave wrong information and registrar made a mistake. What's OFFENSIVE is that you speak about inaccurate details.

Guest wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2025 8:46 pm So, the initial GTHL ruling involved a one game loss & a 6 game suspension of the trainer in question…and the team appealed that decision?

Not submitting paperwork involving vulnerable sector screening is a HUGE oversight. It’s actually OFFENSIVE, if you realize that vulnerable sector screening is essential in preventing known criminals from having access to children.

Rattlers should have taken the initial single loss/suspension given by the G. Too bad the adults involved had to appeal, I bet the players would have been alright taking the Gs first offer.

Guest wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2025 9:16 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2025 9:12 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2025 8:46 pm So, the initial GTHL ruling involved a one game loss & a 6 game suspension of the trainer in question…and the team appealed that decision?

Not submitting paperwork involving vulnerable sector screening is a HUGE oversight. It’s actually OFFENSIVE, if you realize that vulnerable sector screening is essential in preventing known criminals from having access to children.

Rattlers should have taken the initial single loss/suspension given by the G. Too bad the adults involved had to appeal, I bet the players would have been alright taking the Gs first offer.

Ummmm the paperwork was submitted. That's the point. So many idiots on here that can't follow the details. Paperwork submitted, including VSC. GTHL admin gave wrong information and registrar made a mistake. What's OFFENSIVE is that you speak about inaccurate details.

People can't follow the details because the story keeps changing and the details are sketchy/incomplete.

Guest wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2025 9:12 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2025 8:46 pm So, the initial GTHL ruling involved a one game loss & a 6 game suspension of the trainer in question…and the team appealed that decision?

Not submitting paperwork involving vulnerable sector screening is a HUGE oversight. It’s actually OFFENSIVE, if you realize that vulnerable sector screening is essential in preventing known criminals from having access to children.

Rattlers should have taken the initial single loss/suspension given by the G. Too bad the adults involved had to appeal, I bet the players would have been alright taking the Gs first offer.

Ummmm the paperwork was submitted. That's the point. So many idiots on here that can't follow the details. Paperwork submitted, including VSC. GTHL admin gave wrong information and registrar made a mistake. What's OFFENSIVE is that you speak about inaccurate details.

Guest wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2025 9:25 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2025 9:16 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2025 9:12 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2025 8:46 pm So, the initial GTHL ruling involved a one game loss & a 6 game suspension of the trainer in question…and the team appealed that decision?

Not submitting paperwork involving vulnerable sector screening is a HUGE oversight. It’s actually OFFENSIVE, if you realize that vulnerable sector screening is essential in preventing known criminals from having access to children.

Rattlers should have taken the initial single loss/suspension given by the G. Too bad the adults involved had to appeal, I bet the players would have been alright taking the Gs first offer.

Ummmm the paperwork was submitted. That's the point. So many idiots on here that can't follow the details. Paperwork submitted, including VSC. GTHL admin gave wrong information and registrar made a mistake. What's OFFENSIVE is that you speak about inaccurate details.

People can't follow the details because the story keeps changing and the details are sketchy/incomplete.

The website the trolls are bitching about contains all the documents. Every detail fully transparent and on display.

Guest wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2025 9:38 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2025 9:25 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2025 9:16 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2025 9:12 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2025 8:46 pm So, the initial GTHL ruling involved a one game loss & a 6 game suspension of the trainer in question…and the team appealed that decision?

Not submitting paperwork involving vulnerable sector screening is a HUGE oversight. It’s actually OFFENSIVE, if you realize that vulnerable sector screening is essential in preventing known criminals from having access to children.

Rattlers should have taken the initial single loss/suspension given by the G. Too bad the adults involved had to appeal, I bet the players would have been alright taking the Gs first offer.

Ummmm the paperwork was submitted. That's the point. So many idiots on here that can't follow the details. Paperwork submitted, including VSC. GTHL admin gave wrong information and registrar made a mistake. What's OFFENSIVE is that you speak about inaccurate details.

People can't follow the details because the story keeps changing and the details are sketchy/incomplete.

The website the trolls are bitching about contains all the documents. Every detail fully transparent and on display.

So no Rattlers parents had any idea about this. But... didn't you also say it's unfair to punish the poor bench staff who are just volunteer parents? At least they manager and trainer are parents, right? So I guess parents did know about this. And every game when the manager submitted the gamesheet knowing full well that the trainers name wasn't on it but they signed off on it anyways and didn't bother reporting it. I guess that detail was missed also, right? And was it the GTHL that didn't provide proper details to the registrar, or the registrar that made a mistake in submitting the paper work. Because you've said both. And what exactly were the incorrect details the GTHL apparently provided? Or what was the information the registrar failed to submit? Every detail fully transparent and on display, and yet I don't seem to see any of these details. But maybe I just missed them amongst all the text complaining about this isnt fair and blaming everyone else without accepting any responsibility. So I'll just take your word for it that all the details are there and fully transparent.

Guest wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2025 9:26 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2025 9:12 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2025 8:46 pm So, the initial GTHL ruling involved a one game loss & a 6 game suspension of the trainer in question…and the team appealed that decision?

Not submitting paperwork involving vulnerable sector screening is a HUGE oversight. It’s actually OFFENSIVE, if you realize that vulnerable sector screening is essential in preventing known criminals from having access to children.

Rattlers should have taken the initial single loss/suspension given by the G. Too bad the adults involved had to appeal, I bet the players would have been alright taking the Gs first offer.

Ummmm the paperwork was submitted. That's the point. So many idiots on here that can't follow the details. Paperwork submitted, including VSC. GTHL admin gave wrong information and registrar made a mistake. What's OFFENSIVE is that you speak about inaccurate details.

Why wasn’t the trainer’s name on any of the gamesheets?

That’s definitely suspect…kinda ties a questionable knot around the claim of mistaken information given to the team registrar by the G.