To all Aardwolfs Club Members,

SUBJECT: SNC Rep team Players not being allowed to compete because of the Sanctioned Ice Time Ruling of the CIHA.

Following are some emails from fellow SNC members, I feel this is an important issue and I support Bruce and Ian in this, I would hope that our Club members will do likewise. I would note that this issue is not just about our SNCL Team, there was also at least one Senior player from the Super League team who was told he wasn't able to play because of his failure to sign the Sanctioned Ice Time clause of the Rep Team Contract.  I believe strongly that the CIHA should promote ice hockey by helping people play and not by telling them when "they are not allowed to", another example of this is when our members children have been told they are not allowed to practice with their parents at our Aardwolfs Club practices.
How this is beneficial to the children and our members is not clear to me, please pass on your views to all SNC, and participating CIHA members.

Having recently been down South and discussed this with players and administrators in Naseby, Alexandra and Dunedin, they were all horrified at these rulings. Alex played a junior team against us in our B grade game, as this was an appropriate level, all expressed their gratitude afterwards.

Once again please take the time let your CIHA representative members know how you feel on this issue.

Cheers

Clive

Email One:

Bruce Harwood
151Hastings St
Waltham
Christchurch

August 7, 2005

To all CIHA Ice Hockey Players. 

RE: CIHA NON-SANCTIONED ICE HOCKEY RULING

Dear Players, Refs, Coaches and Officials 

I guess most of you by now have heard something about the “Sanctioned Hockey” drama last year which involved the CIHA committees attempt to ban a number of SNC and a Women’s Rep player from attending the Nationals in Gore last year.

You see the CIHA had given a specific directive to the SNC and Women’s Leagues that if any rep players were to attend the private ice hire on Tuesday nights of Dave Whites pick up games they would be banned from playing in the Nationals under the CIHA NON-SANCTIONED EVENT RULING.

The SNC members challenged this ruling and asked the CIHA committee to allow some common sense to prevail and exercise some discretion regarding the implementation of this resolution. The CIHA Committee flatly refused to give any leeway on this ruling sighting safety as the main reason for requiring that all hockey games including social non-contact needed to be sanctioned.

The SNC members then provided evidence that the Tuesday night pickup hockey was played as a non-contact, no slap shots game. It also provided evidence that in the 4 yrs it had been going their had been no serious injuries occur unlike the numerous broken arms and legs and dislocated shoulders that were happening during CIHA sanctioned hockey games.

The CIHA finally suspended its resolution and allowed those banned players to play in last years Nationals stating that they would work to resolve and clarify this resolution with its members before this years Nationals.

Unfortunately this did not happen and the CIHA rather than attempt to work out an amicable agreement sought rather to put the contentious ruling into the form of a player contract which they then used to force players into not being able to play any social hockey in their own private time.

This year I was forced out of the SNC Rep team by the CIHA because of my choice to continue attending the Tuesday night social pickup hockey as I had been doing so for the past 4 years.

I would like to have this unfair ruling removed from the CIHA bylaws once and for all so am going to ask for our Leagues CIHA committee representatives to table a motion at the next CIHA committee meeting that the SANCTIONED HOCKEY RULING be voted out on the grounds that it is unconstitutional and extremely prejudice because…

1)      It was voted in by a committee who at the time was supplied incorrect information by a committee member who stated the ruling had to be adopted by the CIHA in order for it to come into line with existing NZIHF and the IIHF rulings. When the committee member was asked to provide copies of such National and international rulings they could not.  An SNC member then approached the NZIHF and was told by its president that he had never heard of any such rulings before as had either the Auckland or Southern IHA.

2)      At no stage were the various league representatives on the CIHA committee given the opportunity to consult with any of its players regarding such a contentious ruling being adopted.

I believe that to allow any committee to bring in such rulings with out a consultation process with its own members sets a dangerous precedence that could lead to other unfair rulings in the future being brought in, like for instance….

"No Rep player shall be allowed to ride an unsanctioned mountain bike”

“No Rep player shall be allowed to do any unsanctioned jogging”    

“No Rep player shall be allowed to visit an unsanctioned hotel or nightclub”

“No Rep player shall be allowed to engage in any unsanctioned sex” 

Sounds a little far fetched Huh! …… Believe me if you heard some of the comments made by a small element within the committee you wouldn’t think so. 

I am simply asking that you urge your own CIHA committee representative to vote this ridiculous ruling out and show the CIHA that you do not approve of them interfering in your right to spend your own private time in a manner that you choose to. 

Majority Rule!  So let the Majority have their say then! 

Regards
Bruce Harwood
Ice Hockey Player

Email Two:

----Original Message-----
From: Ian Findlay
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2005 10:13 AM
Subject: SNC Rep Team
To All
I have been served written notice by the CIHA that I am no longer eligible to play in the New Zealand National Ice Hockey Championship as a member of the Canterbury SNC team.

Apparently one's desire to play hockey on a Tuesday night during a private ice hire is not acceptable by the CIHA. I believe everyone is entitled to spend their leisure time taking part in activities that suits the individual not the CIHA.

You would have thought that the CIHA would be supportive of any player that makes an effort to improve their fitness and skill through more ice time, what a joke!

Much has been said and discussed about unsanctioned/sanctioned ice hockey during the past year, unfortunately little has been achieved or addressed by the current CIHA committee in regards to this issue.

The CIHA has failed to reply to members' letters on this issue and in some instances CIHA delegates have failed to consult and act in accordance with the best interest of their member groups.

Legally the CIHA has put it's members in a precarious position with the possibility of having to defend legal action against this resolution that is not only fundamentally flawed but technically incorrect because of the wording used in the player contracts.

As an aside can you imagine any Amateur Ice Hockey Association in Canada (or anywhere else in the world for that matter) 'banning' players from a competition because they took part in a game of shinny down at the local school rink?

As you can imagine I'm bitterly disappointed that the CIHA has taken this stand and in an apparent effort to 'save face' are enforcing this ill founded resolution despite the majority of it's members being opposed to it.

Like the rest of you I have trained hard for and always look forward to a competition such as the Nationals. Because of the predicament I'm now in I am currently exploring the option of an invitation to 'join' the Auckland team.

I wish all of you all the best for the Nationals (unless of course I end up playing against you!)

Best Regards
Ian

Email Three:

From: G Somerville
Date: 08/27/05 21:09:21

Subject: SNC Rep Team
Firstly I have to say “good on ya” to both Ian and Bruce who have stood by what they believe to be right. I can appreciate that the SNC team will be extremely disappointed to have lost 2 such valued players from their group. I can understand what Ian and Bruce may be feeling like, after being the only rep player last year not to be allowed to play at Nationals primarily because of fighting this stupid ban and supporting the SNC.

I have a challenge: I wonder whether the SNC team would consider allowing Ian & Bruce to still play and let the CIHA explain to the NZIHF why they are withdrawing the SNC team from Nationals?  

I question how an organization such as CIHA, which at present is not even a legal entity due to being struck off the Incorporated Societies Register, can put their hand on their heart and say they are doing the best for hockey. They get away with it because we let them. It infuriates me further that the SNC league, who have been kind enough to utilize their incorporated society status to enable other leagues to get funding for Nationals, are now “shafted” by the governing body (the CIHA) whom they so willingly helped. The next question should be: Does the SNC really need the CIHA?  

I think many people within the hockey community were so impressed by the strength of the SNC teamwork last year when they stood behind those players that were supposed to be banned. I was saddened that the women's league didn’t have as much guts and determination. I fully support Bruce’s drive to get rid of this ridiculous rule which in my opinion has been pushed so hard by certain individuals who do not wish to lose face.

Last year Graeme and I were preparing to take the CIHA to court over the matter…. Graeme tabled a petition at a CIHA meeting which was completely disregarded. How much more are we going to take? I for one do not believe that certain members of the CIHA have the best interest of hockey at heart. It makes me sick that we all pay hard earned cash to fund the CIHA as well as dedicate our time (often at very anti-social hours) and our money to train and represent Canterbury and in return we get ultimatums.

So where do we go from here? The SNC committee need to discuss how far they want to go and what they want to do?

Best of luck in what ever decision is made.

Brucey and Ian – good on ya guys…