11/21/24
April 19, 2007
Sorry tubby, you're just too good.: Bryan Murray's grand-nephew banned from his youth hockey league, for being too big and too good.
It seems to be important whether or not they asked the Shawville officials to bump their team up a league. The article hints that they, according to some, should have, but doesn't say if they were asked to. It doesn't really even say if they were afforded the opportunity to do so. Most who have played organized sports recognize the need for various levels for different ability levels. There's not much more irritating and less fun for the true "B" level kids than to continually get used to mop the floor by a team that plays a level down just to pad their record and stats. It's even more despicable if it's a group of adults using their children to vicariously humiliate other kids, politics and language be damned. Is the league officials motivation truly an attempt to exclude an innocent young boy based on the regional politics and language differences? If so, then they can try to sleep at night knowing what a vicious chickenshit move they have made. They could easily provide stiffer competition for this child by providing an "A" league team for him to play on or even, as a last resort, moving him up a division where the kids are bigger. But if this is the town of Shawville's attempt to justify playing a team of ringers by crying discrimination, well then fuck them, too.
posted by tahoemoj at 02:44 AM on April 20, 2007
Shawville should cop on and get someone who speaks French to attend the meetings and find out what's going on.
posted by Fence at 03:41 AM on April 20, 2007
No, riots in france show the how badly french speaking people discriminate.
posted by Godzilla82 at 05:19 AM on April 20, 2007
This is a frustrating article. It begins by citing two very clear, very bullshit reasons for the kid being banned. Then they say eight(!) other teams pulled out of some tournament in protest - if they're acting against their own best interests in order to support this team then clearly there has to be some prejudice here. However, the article concludes by asserting that this kid is dominating a scrub league and that the town refuses to move up to a higher tier. If there are tiers, I would assume they're based on town size, not player size. I have no idea because the article doesn't tell me so I'm comparing it to what we have here in the US in high schools, which probably isn't appropriate because this kid is only eight years old. If there is no obligation to move to a higher tier don't make him. If there is screw the kid for owning noobs. I do find it hard to believe that in an area where the official language is French this town is unable to round up a single French speaker - if this were in the United States and we were talking about some town where everyone spoke Spanish or German or Chinese or whatever nobody would care if they lost something because they refused to attend a metting that was conducted in English. Gah, I want more context and less "Jared don't know" bullshit.
posted by chmurray at 07:36 AM on April 20, 2007
Ah - this is only part of the story. Minor League hockey politics in parts of this country... Okay, pretty much the whole country - is ridiculous and asinine. The team isn't far and above the competition, they didn't even finish first in their league. And I would love for some uppity punk to walk into Chicoutimi or Trois Riveres and lay out some good French jokes. Those boys is harder than concrete.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 08:01 AM on April 20, 2007
Yeah, I didn't really understand the article either. It sounds like they are using the language as some kind of smoke screen.
posted by bperk at 08:52 AM on April 20, 2007
I found this article. This makes it seem like a bunch of bullshit, but I don't know if it had anything to do with language. It sounds like some people are pissed that the team is so good. It is really stupid that they let him play and let the team play in B league all year. Then they decide at the playoffs that he is too good, so the team can only play in B league without him.
posted by bperk at 09:06 AM on April 20, 2007
Hockey Outaouais president Mario Lemery said that last fall he asked the Shawville and Fort Coulonge teams to play one level up at A, instead of B. ... He said Fort Coulonge agreed to move up. After the Shawville team wouldn't move up, he offered to let the rest of the team play in the B division as long as their star player didn't play. That's when the whole team decided to boycott. That's pulled from that article you linked (thanks). I dunno, to me it boils down to this Lemery guyl. I do agree with you that letting him play in B during the regular season ought to set a precedent. Even still, I can't say I agree with the decision by the town to not move up A, then boycott and cry foul, is appropriate either. The town has to do what it has to do in order to make sure their kids can play, even if it (apparently) means playing with the A group. Hell they could be proud of that. Problem is, as Weedy points out, the team only finished 3rd. Sure they have one stud player, but they didn't win their division, much less phsyically dominate it and "not be any fun to play against" - I'm sure the teams they lost to would beg to differ. Telling one kid he can't play is bullshit, unless the Lemery "asking" a team to move up is a nice way of him demanding that they do so. He's the president of the league so I'd assume he could just tell schools what level they're playing at, but this whole "asking" thing makes that seem unlikely.
posted by chmurray at 10:39 AM on April 20, 2007
It appears the 'rules' were changed in the middle of the season, just prior to the playoffs. Had there been in place a rule to say that teams with A, B, C characteristics, e. g. those winning games by more than 7 goals or something, must move to the next tier.... this would have been avoided... Had there been in place a rule that said that each and every player on the bench must play a minimum of x minutes in each game, the impact of a STAR would have been minimized.....and likely this would have been avoided. Had there been a rule that placed a weight limit as well as an age limit on players in a certain tier/level, then this would have been avoided. But to change the rules in the middle of a season, just prior to the play-offs, is C.S. and every one knows it. Perhaps, we don't have all the facts.... But then again, the French are the French.... reinforces my life long avoidance of dropping my tourist dollars there...
posted by Fly_Piscator at 11:11 AM on April 20, 2007
"then again, the French are the French..." Nothing like taking an otherwise intelligent post and adding a little bigotry to negate it. Keep your "tourist dollars". I'm sure nobody wants you there anyway.
posted by DudeDykstra at 12:02 PM on April 20, 2007
"At the beginning of the year, they said we should play in the B because we're not strong. They were not honest at the beginning of the season," Mr. Lemery said. "I asked them to go A and they said no." They ended up third in their "B" division, and were one and done in their own playoffs... The opposite question arises, why penalize a bunch of B level players because they just happen to have one A level player? Mr. Leprosy thinks it's no fun if they're beating other teams, but doesn't seem to address what this teams realistic chances in "A" hockey would have been. If you came in third at your cubs tennis tourney this year, would you want to try to get a gold at the same level next year, or would you want to move up so you could come in last in the higher division? I'm not really sure why a team would volunteer to go out and be a punching bag in a higher division. Also, while the number of 51 goals in 17 games seems huge, remember Gretsky scored 310 goals in novice hockey and noone tried to ban him. I sure hope Mr. Lemery feels a whole lot better now that he has taken a big ol' dump over a bunch of 8 year olds. That'll teach 'em. It's always nice when adults take their petty squabbles and f-up little kids lives because of them. Same goes for the Shawville people who threw out the baby with the bath water by holding all of their teams back. I also think it's somewhat Ironic that the same group who is so hostile to anyone who doesn't put English and French on a sign thinks it's perfectly OK to conduct their meetings in French only. "You must accommodate us, we don't have to accommodate you." Foutre le camp, Msr. Lemery. Cretin.
posted by LostInDaJungle at 12:31 PM on April 20, 2007
Perhaps, we don't have all the facts.... But then again, the French are the French.... reinforces my life long avoidance of dropping my tourist dollars there... Well, you have the facts, you just chose not to use them. They are Canadian, not French. So, I guess you're going to avoid going to Canada.
posted by tommybiden at 10:28 PM on April 20, 2007
I also think it's somewhat Ironic that the same group who is so hostile to anyone who doesn't put English and French on a sign thinks it's perfectly OK to conduct their meetings in French only. "You must accommodate us, we don't have to accommodate you." Well, that's pretty much the way the country's set up, LIDJ. As a new Canadian (and former American), I find it baffling. There was even a recent instance where a guy got out of a traffic ticket in Winnipeg (or somewhere else out there) because the sign wasn't in both English and French. It's supposed to be law that everything's bilingual, but when I honeymooned in Quebec City, absolutely nothing was in English. Because many of the Quebecois insist on bringing up separation constantly, I have recommended on several occasions that the rest of Canada suddenly grant their wish, then carpet-bomb them into submission, retake the land and tell them, "Okay, now we've conquered you. Here's an English dictionary -- get to work." That's when people realize I'm American, I think. They are Canadian, not French. You'd have to ask them that, Tommy.
posted by wfrazerjr at 03:30 PM on April 22, 2007
Pssh, like Québec French is even French. That'll anger up their blood.