What's the call: why faulty logic matters

In the emotionally charged world of minor hockey, decisions are made fast — sometimes too fast. From coaching choices to parental assumptions and board decisions, we often rely on mental shortcuts to make sense of complex situations.

But when those shortcuts rely on logical fallacies — flawed patterns of reasoning — we risk ignoring positive solutions, possibly harming kids and reinforcing memes that produce toxic hockey culture.

What is a Logical Fallacy?

A logical fallacy is a mistake in reasoning that makes an argument invalid or misleading. They often show up when:

People are trying to win an argument instead of seeking truth

Emotions override evidence

Decisions are made based on tradition, fear, or bias — not facts

Understanding them helps create psychologically safe, fair environments for players and clearer decision-making for adults.

Common Logical Fallacies in Minor Hockey (With Examples)

1. Appeal to Celebrity (or Authority)

"He’s the next McDavid!"

Faulty Conclusion: Because someone once succeeded in a similar way, this player will too.

✅ Better Logic: Comparisons are great but don't let them drive decisions for that child that aren't healthy or realistic. Let's focus on this player's journey right now and don't panic about the future.

2. Straw Man Argument

"So you're saying we should give everyone equal ice time, even if they don’t try / have an attitude / aren't ready for game play?"

Faulty Conclusion: Oversimplifying or misrepresenting a concern to make it easier to avoid the real issue.

✅ Better Logic: Calmly come back to the original issue, IE: how a coach communicates playing time, developmental guidelines, coaching practices.

3. Ad Hominem

"That coach is a moron so of course my kid doesn't listen."

Faulty Conclusion: Attacking the speaker instead of addressing the actual concern.

✅ Better Logic: Listen to the issue being raised objectively and without bias or prejuding in order to find solutions.

4. Bandwagon Fallacy

"Every team double-rosters. It’s just the way it is." "Every coach does it this way if you want the team to win."

Faulty Conclusion: Assuming something is right because it’s popular.

✅ Better Logic: See if what's happening lines up with development goals, policy, or player well-being. Start there. If it impacts players psychological safety is there coaching needed around that?

5. False Dichotomy (Either/Or Thinking)

"Either we play our top line the whole game, or we lose."

Faulty Conclusion: Ignoring the middle ground or not giving kids a chance to prove you wrong.

✅ Better Logic: Development and competition can coexist. Short-term wins shouldn’t sabotage long-term growth.

How to Pull Faulty Conclusions Apart

1. Slow Down the Conversation

Pause emotionally reactive language. Ask: “What’s the actual concern here?”

2. Ask for Evidence

“What makes you say that?” or “Is there data or policy that supports this choice?”

3. Name the Pattern

Calling out the fallacy (gently) helps shift the conversation:

“That sounds like we’re assuming A leads directly to B — but is that always true?”

4. Make the Player’s the Center of All Conclusions

Ask: How does this impact the player’s development, safety, and sense of belonging?

Final Thought: Accountability Grows the Game

Recognizing faulty logic isn’t about winning arguments. It’s about creating a culture of fairness, clarity, and humility — where decisions aren’t made on gut instinct or emotion, but on evidence and integrity.