pick up hockey (shinny) pet peeves

[Vulcan7905 88]

Just a couple tonight

40 Skaters for 2 hours. Sure 20 per team but people were out there for 5 to 10 minutes. Take a short shift and recover.

Beginner (our Saturday night league) invited only. Yet somehow C league players beIng dicks and hot dogging and passing to each other and nobody else. Yup, impresses us all, congrats! Talk with my wife (only person there watching) after the pick up, she has a contract for you for the AHL!

People doing celebrations during pick up after they scored. REALLY?

[Capt.Hook 23]

In terms of the water issue, I don't mind if guys want some, just fill it up when it's empty. I tape it up with white tape and actually write that on the bottle. "Fill it up when it's empty . . . Bum."

Few of my pet peeves:

1. Guys only bringing one jersey so when it thins out you have like 5 on 1 bench and 1 on the other and everybody just shrugging their shoulders about only having one color jersey.

2. Guys wearing light gray, almond, or off white jersey's. What the heck are you? Light or dark?

3. Guys playing tough guy out there. We actually have a "hit club" at our pick up skate on Mondays. I have a bunch of bullseye stickers that are available for anybody who wants to join. The bullseye means that you are good to go for clean hits from anybody else with a bullseye. It's a lot of fun and we all know each other so it's great. What I hate is when a "tough" guy comes out and wants to get all slashy and cross-checky.

[MarsB 33]

We actually have a "hit club" at our pick up skate on Mondays. I have a bunch of bullseye stickers that are available for anybody who wants to join. The bullseye means that you are good to go for clean hits from anybody else with a bullseye. It's a lot of fun and we all know each other so it's great.

This is awesome! I'd love to be part of something like that, seems like the perfect solution for players of different levels/comfort zones playing together.

[Apes44 7]

3. Guys playing tough guy out there. We actually have a "hit club" at our pick up skate on Mondays. I have a bunch of bullseye stickers that are available for anybody who wants to join. The bullseye means that you are good to go for clean hits from anybody else with a bullseye. It's a lot of fun and we all know each other so it's great. What I hate is when a "tough" guy comes out and wants to get all slashy and cross-checky.

Sounds cool, but also like a law suit waiting to happen!

[wrangler 157]

That's the view I would expect rinks and their insurance companies to take.

[splitbtw 2]

In terms of the water issue, I don't mind if guys want some, just fill it up when it's empty. I tape it up with white tape and actually write that on the bottle. "Fill it up when it's empty . . . Bum."

Few of my pet peeves:

1. Guys only bringing one jersey so when it thins out you have like 5 on 1 bench and 1 on the other and everybody just shrugging their shoulders about only having one color jersey.

2. Guys wearing light gray, almond, or off white jersey's. What the heck are you? Light or dark?

3. Guys playing tough guy out there. We actually have a "hit club" at our pick up skate on Mondays. I have a bunch of bullseye stickers that are available for anybody who wants to join. The bullseye means that you are good to go for clean hits from anybody else with a bullseye. It's a lot of fun and we all know each other so it's great. What I hate is when a "tough" guy comes out and wants to get all slashy and cross-checky.

Just a thought. Not to mention all of those colors are light in color. Just because it isnt white does not mean it's not light.

[iceNsteel 0]

I haven't seen a drop in hockey sign in sheet that didn't include wording to the effect that the skate was no checking and no fighting. Signing it is agreeing to that, so unless you can prove the rink new about the hit club and did nothing to stop it you'd have a hard time with a law suit. More so if you were in the hit club and thus were knowingly engaging in prohibited conduct.

[wrangler 157]

You don't have to prove the rink knew about it; "should have known" is usually good enough, and that should be easy with bullseye stickers.

The sign-in sheet language may affect the responsibilities of those who sign, but it does not affect the potential liability of the rink.

Not a tough suit.

[AllCanadian 2]

The mentally retarded guy the rink lets play(seriously). He's a threat to himself and every other person on the ice. Wild stick and no concept of time or rules, half the time he just roams around like its public skating causing random collisions and chaos. Rink says "everyone is allowed to play"

[iceNsteel 0]

You don't have to prove the rink knew about it; "should have known" is usually good enough, and that should be easy with bullseye stickers.

The sign-in sheet language may affect the responsibilities of those who sign, but it does not affect the potential liability of the rink.

Not a tough suit.

I would not really want to stand in front of a civil court jury and the sum of my case is "I got hurt violating an agreement I signed with a rink intentionally but they should have magically known what we were doing and stopped us." A rink doesn't have any responsibility to monitor adults. You'd have difficultly proving that it was reasonable that they should have known about a group on individuals conspiring to break the agreement they signed, possibly repeatedly signed. Maybe if you could show a pattern of injuries resulting from this "hit club." But even then, it's hockey, and there is an assumed risk of injury should you play hockey.

Would wager large sums of money if you walked into an attorney's office and told him/her you were hurt in this fashion they wouldn't be taking the case on contingency.

[Capt.Hook 23]

I understand all your concerns.

However, it goes like this.

We have always had a few guys that play contact out there. My best bud and I try to kill each other. He is the best hip checker I've ever played against and has sent me over his back more often than I've laid a shoulder into him. We don't touch anybody that doesn't want to do this. There is no pressure and I don't advertise it. If somebody asks, I let them know. All th stickers are for is to let you know who is up for it and who isn't.

It's also kind of nice because as guys watch us lay some big ones on each other, it's a wee bit intimidating and we get almost none of the cheap hacking and slashing and tough guy acts I see often at Drop-Ins.

The group that does it is all friends and we play it clean and straight up. It's just a lot of fun to play a little contact and know that everybody is on board and nobody is pissed and going to run you or anything from behind. It really makes you honest out there and you put those toe drags away and play a little more heads up. I love the opportunity to play a physical but clean game. That's all.

[Law Goalie 147]

I would not really want to stand in front of a civil court jury ...

Would wager large sums of money if you walked into an attorney's office and told him/her you were hurt in this fashion they wouldn't be taking the case on contingency.

Oh dear. (I'm not being a jerk, but the person to whom you addressed that-- well, let's just say you put your foot in it.)

[Axxion89 32]

I don't know what rinks you guys play in, but in every rink I played in I never signed anything about liability. Also, if its his ice time or the pickup and they want to hit, who cares, sounds like he's doing it in the best way. Every rink I have been to though always has a sign that states "THE RINK IS NO LIABLE FOR ANY INJURY THAT OCCURS ON THE ICE" so basically, if you get hurt, its your problem to deal with. I don't see how its any different than playing with people who play rough and slash and hook etc

[black hills tj 5]

I don't know what rinks you guys play in, but in every rink I played in I never signed anything about liability. Also, if its his ice time or the pickup and they want to hit, who cares, sounds like he's doing it in the best way. Every rink I have been to though always has a sign that states "THE RINK IS NO LIABLE FOR ANY INJURY THAT OCCURS ON THE ICE" so basically, if you get hurt, its your problem to deal with. I don't see how its any different than playing with people who play rough and slash and hook etc

I'd much rather play with clean checks than the cheap hacks/hooks/trips/etc

[wrangler 157]

I would not really want to stand in front of a civil court jury and the sum of my case is "I got hurt violating an agreement I signed with a rink intentionally but they should have magically known what we were doing and stopped us." A rink doesn't have any responsibility to monitor adults. You'd have difficultly proving that it was reasonable that they should have known about a group on individuals conspiring to break the agreement they signed, possibly repeatedly signed. Maybe if you could show a pattern of injuries resulting from this "hit club." But even then, it's hockey, and there is an assumed risk of injury should you play hockey.

Would wager large sums of money if you walked into an attorney's office and told him/her you were hurt in this fashion they wouldn't be taking the case on contingency.

Let me rephrase: not as tough a case as you make it out to be. You've been misinformed -- it doesn't take magic to spot stickers or body checks, and a rink does have responsibilities to monitor activities on its premises.

Assumption of the risk ("It's his own damn fault") is an argument, but not a guaranteed win. It's a defense that can be raised, but may be a tough sell to a jury. It doesn't come into the issue of the rink's duty, and forseeable actions by the players. And many times that is not as hard a sell to a jury, especially with appalling injuries. You're also dealing with the validity of the waiver, which can be a major problem. Further, depending on jurisdiction, you may not be able to bar recovery, only limit it somewhat, with that defense.

I don't know where you are, so I should mention that I'm considering the U.S. here, and have neither knowledge or opinion of Canadian law.

[chrisk 1]

When collecting the $15 for the skate and some guy hands you check for $15. WTF.

[Davetronz 109]

When collecting the $15 for the skate and some guy hands you check for $15. WTF.

Still better than the guys who leave early and "forget" to pay.

Or, the guys who forget their wallet at home and have to "get it to you next time".

[iceNsteel 0]

Let me rephrase: not as tough a case as you make it out to be. You've been misinformed -- it doesn't take magic to spot stickers or body checks, and a rink does have responsibilities to monitor activities on its premises.

Assumption of the risk ("It's his own damn fault") is an argument, but not a guaranteed win. It's a defense that can be raised, but may be a tough sell to a jury. It doesn't come into the issue of the rink's duty, and forseeable actions by the players. And many times that is not as hard a sell to a jury, especially with appalling injuries. You're also dealing with the validity of the waiver, which can be a major problem. Further, depending on jurisdiction, you may not be able to bar recovery, only limit it somewhat, with that defense.

I don't know where you are, so I should mention that I'm considering the U.S. here, and have neither knowledge or opinion of Canadian law.

A waiver is a waiver, and no it doesn't change rink liability. However, when you sign a sign-in sheet you are making an agreement with the rink not to engage in certain conduct. In this case, you're agreeing not to intentionally check another player. If you agree to that, then join a "hit club" in clear and willful violation of your agreement with the rink it would be very difficult to say the rink has any liability in the results of your conduct. To win an injury suit you would have to prove that joining the hit club, when you had agreed not to engage in such conduct, was not a significant factor in your injury. It's not a matter of a rink being unable to waive actual liability. It's a matter of a violation of a contract you made with the rink. If violating that contract results in your injury the rink's liability is greatly mitigated, or reduced to nothing.

[BenderHockey 127]

A waiver is a waiver, and no it doesn't change rink liability. However, when you sign a sign-in sheet you are making an agreement with the rink not to engage in certain conduct. In this case, you're agreeing not to intentionally check another player. If you agree to that, then join a "hit club" in clear and willful violation of your agreement with the rink it would be very difficult to say the rink has any liability in the results of your conduct. To win an injury suit you would have to prove that joining the hit club, when you had agreed not to engage in such conduct, was not a significant factor in your injury. It's not a matter of a rink being unable to waive actual liability. It's a matter of a violation of a contract you made with the rink. If violating that contract results in your injury the rink's liability is greatly mitigated, or reduced to nothing.

As funny as it is to watch you argue law with a lawyer, I will back up what he is saying that you are incorrect.

[AfftonDad 88]

You don't have to prove the rink knew about it; "should have known" is usually good enough, and that should be easy with bullseye stickers.

The sign-in sheet language may affect the responsibilities of those who sign, but it does not affect the potential liability of the rink.

Not a tough suit.

Every lift ticket I've ever worn says something about the resort not being responsible for any injuries (not to mention all of the signs everywhere that say something similar). Even so, all resorts get sued (and frequently loose) many times each year for people getting injured.

[wrangler 157]

A waiver is a waiver, and no it doesn't change rink liability. However, when you sign a sign-in sheet you are making an agreement with the rink not to engage in certain conduct. In this case, you're agreeing not to intentionally check another player. If you agree to that, then join a "hit club" in clear and willful violation of your agreement with the rink it would be very difficult to say the rink has any liability in the results of your conduct. To win an injury suit you would have to prove that joining the hit club, when you had agreed not to engage in such conduct, was not a significant factor in your injury. It's not a matter of a rink being unable to waive actual liability. It's a matter of a violation of a contract you made with the rink. If violating that contract results in your injury the rink's liability is greatly mitigated, or reduced to nothing.

I used the term "waiver" to refer to the waiver of liability in your "agreement". I don't see an agreement not to check as a bar to recovery when you describe an organized and continuing pattern of behavior that is obvious to ordinary observation. I believe this would make it tough for them to gain much credibility with a jury by pointing to a piece of paper, while admitting that they allowed checking to the extent of this organized "hit club", in session after session. Even giving this language effect, it could be deemed that they waived this provision of the agreement by their conduct. You'd also have to deal with the paper proving that the rink had knowledge that checking could occur, that it's dangerous, and that they tried to stop it with the written language, but did not follow through in their duty to detect or police this known danger.

It seems our understandings of negligence differ, and we're going to have to remain in disagreement on this one.

[Capt.Hook 23]

Wow! I really didn't think it would go here - ha ha.

It's really just a way for fat, old knuckleheads like me to play a little physical hockey with guys that want to as well.

The bonus byproduct is that it actually cuts down on a lot of the cheaper slashing, cross checking, and dirty checks which is my original pet peeve.

[iceNsteel 0]

I used the term "waiver" to refer to the waiver of liability in your "agreement". I don't see an agreement not to check as a bar to recovery when you describe an organized and continuing pattern of behavior that is obvious to ordinary observation. I believe this would make it tough for them to gain much credibility with a jury by pointing to a piece of paper, while admitting that they allowed checking to the extent of this organized "hit club", in session after session. Even giving this language effect, it could be deemed that they waived this provision of the agreement by their conduct. You'd also have to deal with the paper proving that the rink had knowledge that checking could occur, that it's dangerous, and that they tried to stop it with the written language, but did not follow through in their duty to detect or police this known danger.

It seems our understandings of negligence differ, and we're going to have to remain in disagreement on this one.

A waiver is a waiver. The catch all "we're not responsible for anything" language. Conduct agreements represent a terms of entry agreement between you and the rink, which is a different ball game than a waiver. So like I said, wouldn't want to pin my hopes on a jury when my argument boils down to "I agreed not to do this, did it anyway, got hurt, now I want free money."

Of course the fact this is even an issue speaks volumes about the parasitic nature of our legal culture, but that's another issue.

[wrangler 157]

Wow! I really didn't think it would go here - ha ha.

It's really just a way for fat, old knuckleheads like me to play a little physical hockey with guys that want to as well.

The bonus byproduct is that it actually cuts down on a lot of the cheaper slashing, cross checking, and dirty checks which is my original pet peeve.

Nothing wrong with that. And I know people that, if they did that and got injured, wouldn't care what they signed; they just wouldn't sue. They'd just figure that they have to live with the decisions they make, and they did it with their eyes wide open. No matter what you hear, a lot of us won't sue simply because we can get some money.

A waiver is a waiver. The catch all "we're not responsible for anything" language. Conduct agreements represent a terms of entry agreement between you and the rink, which is a different ball game than a waiver. So like I said, wouldn't want to pin my hopes on a jury when my argument boils down to "I agreed not to do this, did it anyway, got hurt, now I want free money."

Of course the fact this is even an issue speaks volumes about the parasitic nature of our legal culture, but that's another issue.

I think you misunderstand the meaning of "waiver". It simply means that one agrees to "waive", or give up, a right. In the case you described, one "waives" a right in your "agreement". It's an act, not a document. People waive rights in contracts all the time, though you might not have heard the term in this context before. The term itself is unimportant here; it's not part of my argument. And it's up to the court whether any term of the agreement is legally effective.

[Chadd 916]

I don't know what rinks you guys play in, but in every rink I played in I never signed anything about liability. Also, if its his ice time or the pickup and they want to hit, who cares, sounds like he's doing it in the best way. Every rink I have been to though always has a sign that states "THE RINK IS NO LIABLE FOR ANY INJURY THAT OCCURS ON THE ICE" so basically, if you get hurt, its your problem to deal with. I don't see how its any different than playing with people who play rough and slash and hook etc

The rink can say whatever they want but simply saying that does not relieve them from any and all liability. Especially if someone can prove negligence on the part of the rink or their staff.