Ice Hockey (1875?-), A Canadian Sport Overseen by the International Ice Hockey Federation

[DonRocks]

"Since we have a Baseball thread, why not Ice Hockey?"

"Because the world 'hockey' sounds sillier-and-sillier each time you say it, Don."

"Oh."

I had *no* idea that this sport was played indoors as early as 1875 (and in the Olympics since 1920). There is a bevy (I've always wanted to use that word, bevy) of interesting information in the Wikipedia article (under the "Ice Hockey" link), and Wikipedia's links will take you into even more depth.

Like the Baseball thread, this is about the sport itself - its origins, rules, etc. - and not about any particular team or player. Thus, it probably won't get a lot of activity, but it's here if you need it.

[lovehockey]

If you can tell from my posting name, I love hockey. Heck, I'm alive because of hockey.  To me, "hockey" refers to the sport played on ice.  You put the disclaimer on the other forms, like street hockey, floor hockey, and the like.  I'm a bit of a purist that way.  But if you want to talk rules or history, I can talk those subjects with you.

[DonRocks]

If you can tell from my posting name, I love hockey. Heck, I'm alive because of hockey.  To me, "hockey" refers to the sport played on ice.  You put the disclaimer on the other forms, like street hockey, floor hockey, and the like.  I'm a bit of a purist that way.  But if you want to talk rules or history, I can talk those subjects with you.

(Nobody actually calls it "ice hockey"; I was being formal for the title.)

[dgreen]

My balance has always sucked. It took me a while to get a hang of riding a bike and I fell every single time I ever went ice skating. Last time I went was probably 15 years ago and I fell hard on my butt and vowed to never step on ice again. I think I've been rollerskating maybe once in my life and I refuse to try roller blades.

I really like hockey, but obviously can't skate at all. I assume if I had started young then I could be very comfortable on skates. I grew up playing street hockey in the neighborhood on foot and played in some deck hockey leagues from late high school through my 20s. Really fun sport to play. I miss those days. The things some of these people can do with a stick on skates on ice is amazing. So much skill is required.

Olympic hockey is arguably my favorite sports tournament. In my opinion, it's better than even the Final Four.

[DaveO]

I'm a huge sports fan and played endlessly when younger.  Among winter sports I'm a far bigger fan of basketball than hockey. At an early age I attended some professional basketball and hockey games.  Basketball, which I loved, was not great to watch from the inexpensive nosebleed seats.   From those same seats hockey was endlessly exciting.

After decades of watching sports, In my opinion, nothing has ever been as satisfying, exciting, and nerve wracking as the Miracle on Ice hockey match from the 1980 Olympics

[JPW]

I played varsity hockey in high school (WPIAL champs in '87, perfect 21-0 record in '88 (until the playoffs)). Played 2 years of club league level hockey at Northwestern. Always wore #4 in honor of my favorite player as a kid.

It's the greatest sport on Earth.

If only the NHL would toss the fighting to the curb along with Don Cherry.

[lovehockey]

I played varsity hockey in high school (WPIAL champs in '87, perfect 21-0 record in '88 (until the playoffs)). Played 2 years of club league level hockey at Northwestern. Always wore #4 in honor of my favorite player as a kid.

It's the greatest sport on Earth.

If only the NHL would toss the fighting to the curb along with Don Cherry.

Fighting is another subject, but I think Cherry is there as long as he wants to be there.  Love him or hate him, he's an institution.  He's also a big supporter of the Canadian military, which I appreciate.  And I think that Ron MacLean has a job as long as Grapes is there to require a sidekick.  You can't have one without the other.

The suits are also really something...

[darkstar965]

I can't remember the rules on these new arts forums in terms of which forum to use when a subject overlaps two like a sports film. This just felt more appropriate here than under Films.

I'd strongly recommend the new film "Red Army" to anyone with interests in hockey OR the 1980 "Miracle on ice" OR the Cold War OR the Soviet Union.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3264102/

My use of "OR" in that line is intentional. Interest in any one of those topics is enough to really enjoy this film. I saw it at a film festival last year and was a little surprised when Sony Films picked it up and it ended up getting some real buzz on TV, radio/NPR and even the Oscars.

It's a fascinating documentary about the Soviet hockey team before, during and well after Lake Placid, importantly told entirely from the Soviet players' perspectives. Fetisov, the current Russian Minister for Sport and Captain of those great teams, plays a starting role in explaining and interpreting the event which literally helped shaped the superpower relationship with profound impact on the many players and their families.

[lovehockey]

I remember watching this as a kid:  Wayne Gretzky visiting Vladislav Tretyak in 1983.  Tretyak would have been one of the best NHL goalies of all time if he had played here.  If you watch the video all the way through, there is a blonde gal named Vicki who is seen and mentioned.  She was Wayne's GF for a while, but he ended up marrying Janet Jones (to the chagrin of Oilers fans everywhere, who largely blame her for his trade to LA).  Vicki's brother Joey has Down Syndrome, and right around the time this video was shot Wayne got a job for Joey in the Oilers' locker room.  To this day Joey works there and in the Edmonton Eskimos' locker room (before hockey season starts).  Joey is a celebrity in Edmonton and was just elected to the Alberta Sports Hall of Fame.

In the video, Tretyak says if he had the chance (and his teammates had the chance) he (and they) would have played for the Montreal Canadiens.  He eventually worked as a goalie coach for the Blackhawks.  He is now the head honcho for the Russian Ice Hockey Federation.

[darkstar965]

I remember watching this as a kid:  Wayne Gretzky visiting Vladislav Tretyak in 1983.  Tretyak would have been one of the best NHL goalies of all time if he had played here.  If you watch the video all the way through, there is a blonde gal named Vicki who is seen and mentioned.  She was Wayne's GF for a while, but he ended up marrying Janet Jones (to the chagrin of Oilers fans everywhere, who largely blame her for his trade to LA).  Vicki's brother Joey has Down Syndrome, and right around the time this video was shot Wayne got a job for Joey in the Oilers' locker room.  To this day Joey works there and in the Edmonton Eskimos' locker room (before hockey season starts).  Joey is a celebrity in Edmonton and was just elected to the Alberta Sports Hall of Fame.

In the video, Tretyak says if he had the chance (and his teammates had the chance) he (and they) would have played for the Montreal Canadiens.  He eventually worked as a goalie coach for the Blackhawks.  He is now the head honcho for the Russian Ice Hockey Federation.

Great stuff, lovehockey! Tretyak was such an imposing figure leading up yo Lake Placid. "Red Army" covers him some and also deals extensively with the experiences of the Soviets (including Fetisov) who were allowed to play in North Ametica. They and their families had a very hard time initially until they went to Detroit. Have you seen the film? If not, you must.

[JPW]

I can't remember the rules on these new arts forums in terms of which forum to use when a subject overlaps two like a sports film. This just felt more appropriate here than under Films.

I'd strongly recommend the new film "Red Army" to anyone with interests in hockey OR the 1980 "Miracle on ice" OR the Cold War OR the Soviet Union.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3264102/

My use of "OR" in that line is intentional. Interest in any one of those topics is enough to really enjoy this film. I saw it at a film festival last year and was a little surprised when Sony Films picked it up and it ended up getting some real buzz on TV, radio/NPR and even the Oscars.

It's a fascinating documentary about the Soviet hockey team before, during and well after Lake Placid, importantly told entirely from the Soviet players' perspectives. Fetisov, the current Russian Minister for Sport and Captain of those great teams, plays a starting role in explaining and interpreting the event which literally helped shaped the superpower relationship with profound impact on the many players and their families.

+1. Caught this the other day on NBC (?). Great documentary. Especially the tale of Fetisov making it to the NJ Devils.

[lovehockey]

TSN (the Canadian equivalent of ESPN) hired former NHL referee Kerry Fraser several years back to write a column titled "C'mon, Ref!"  He answers questions about the rules and why referees called plays they way they did.  He also tells the occasional story.  If you like to watch NHL hockey, he definitely gives a different perspective on the proceedings.

[aaronsinger]

I played varsity hockey in high school (WPIAL champs in '87, perfect 21-0 record in '88 (until the playoffs)). Played 2 years of club league level hockey at Northwestern. Always wore #4 in honor of my favorite player as a kid.

It's the greatest sport on Earth.

If only the NHL would toss the fighting to the curb along with Don Cherry.

Where did you play? I know the high school team played games at Robert Crown (still does, AFAIK).

[JPW]

Where did you play? I know the high school team played games at Robert Crown (still does, AFAIK).

Too long ago to remember, but that name strikes a bell. I do remember that it wasn't too far a drive from campus (maybe 10 minutes).

[DonRocks]

It's a little misleading to just look at numbers - Gretzky played in an era that was wide open offensive hockey. He also played in an era where they started handing out assists to the last two guys to touch the puck on the goal scorer's team. It used to be much more judgemental about if they assisted the play or not (kind of like hoops).

I have *always* thought crediting an assist to the last *two* players who touched the puck was B.S. Why not just do it automatically, to the *one* person who touched it beforehand? It's so much simpler, and connects today's era with bygone eras. Why did they change the way this is done?

I didn't realize that Gretzky had benefited so disproportionately from this - it doesn't seem fair. On the other hand, depending on when they instituted that policy, Orr could have benefited from it even more than Gretzky since, as a defenseman, he would naturally be the catalyst to more goals involving two players after he touched the puck (keep in mind, Gretzky, Lemieux, and Orr are the only three players ever to rack up 100 assists in a single season). Do they assign assists to two people every time, or is it a judgment call every time, and when did this happen? I vote for "automatic assist to one person only." Yes, that might not be fair to someone who starts a quick score with three people involved, but it all evens out over time. What happens when a single player skates the length of the rink and scores? And at what point does icing come into play?

Do they do this now in the NBA as well? Soccer? Gosh, I hope not.

[JPW]

I can't recall exactly when they started doing it and don't have time to research, but I want to say that I remember noticing it some time in the early 80s (or so my old mind tells me). The other advantage that Lemieux and Gretzsky had was that the early 80s was that overall goal scoring was much higher than it is today - just take a look at goalie pads then and now!

BTW - Although Stan Mikita and Bobby Hull were the ones to popularize the curved blade, it is usually accepted that Andy Bathgate (NYR) was the first to regularly use one in games. But Mikita and Hull get all of the credit because who has ever heard of Andy Bathgate?

[DaveO]

 But Mikita and Hull get all of the credit because who has ever heard of Andy Bathgate?

I have, but I'm old and from the NY area.

I have *always* thought crediting an assist to the last *two* players who touched the puck was B.S. Why not just do it automatically, to the *one* person who touched it beforehand? It's so much simpler, and connects today's era with bygone eras. Why did they change the way this is done?

I didn't realize that Gretzky had benefited so disproportionately from this - it doesn't seem fair. On the other hand, depending on when they instituted that policy, Orr could have benefited from it even more than Gretzky since, as a defenseman, he would naturally be the catalyst to more goals involving two players after he touched the puck (keep in mind, Gretzky, Lemieux, and Orr are the only three players ever to rack up 100 assists in a single season). Do they assign assists to two people every time, or is it a judgment call every time, and when did this happen? I vote for "automatic assist to one person only." Yes, that might not be fair to someone who starts a quick score with three people involved, but it all evens out over time. What happens when a single player skates the length of the rink and scores? And at what point does icing come into play?

Do they do this now in the NBA as well? Soccer? Gosh, I hope not.

Recently, with the advent of multiple cameras covering the entire NBA game, advanced metrics cover the pass before the assist, or the assist to the assist. I know there is a website with this data, just can't recall it at all. Supposedly these analyses are being used more and more by teams.

In soccer if you're playing, you're definitely aware of who makes the pass before the assist.  If your filming, coaching, and analyzing the games, you're very aware of it and pointing it out to the players.  Is it officially recorded? I wouldn't know.

So much effort goes into attacking through the middle, or up the sides, or focused on the right side or left side, short passing attacks, through passes, long passes, etc.   But is it an official stat??   Just don't know.

[lovehockey]

I've heard of Andy Bathgate too.  What did you expect?

I'll agree that Gretzky played in a era of wide-open offensive hockey*.  And Patrick Roy's equipment near the end of his career pretty much necessitated goalie protection equipment rules re: size.

*Dave Semenko was also around to beat the daylights out of anyone on the other team who sneezed in Gretzky's direction.  Once Gretzky went to St. Louis it was downhill from there.  Disclaimer:  I'm pro-enforcer.

The 1987 Canada Cup contained fantastic offensive hockey.  Made Grant Fuhr look awful at times.

[DonRocks]

Joe, you might appreciate this:

My Big Sister in my fraternity left college after her junior year because she got married to Moe Mantha.

They're still happily married, he still looks good, and their son is apparently playing professional hockey.

I'll probably take this picture down because it's not public (we're Facebook friends), but since we have a Pittsburgh fan in our midst ...

[dgreen]

Do they assign assists to two people every time, or is it a judgment call every time, and when did this happen?

Not sure when it happened. But, assists are only awarded if there's no change of possession.

If Ovechkin steals the puck from Crosby and scores without any other Cap touching the puck since that change of possession, then Ovechkin gets the goal and nobody gets an assist.

If Backstrom passes to Green, Green loses possession to the opponent, Backstrom gets it back and passes to Ovechkin, and Ovechkin scores, then Backstrom gets the only assist.

[lovehockey]

dgreen is correct, and he has a good example of an only-assist.

Two assists are awarded if the two of the teammates previous to the goal-scorer controlled the puck.  Note that this does not include the goal-scorer.  For example, if Ovechkin passed to Backstrom, and Backstrom passed back to Ovechkin, who then shot and scored a goal, Backstrom would get the only assist.  But if Green passed to Backstrom who then passed to Ovechkin for the goal, then Green and Backstrom would get the assists.

[Al Dente]

Why is doggy-style the favorite position of Canadians?

[DonRocks]

Why is doggy-style the favorite position of Canadians?

Because I did a rod?

[lovehockey]

So they can both watch the hockey game.

[DonRocks]

So they can both watch the hockey game.

[lovehockey]

Not a huge pro hockey fan but, as a sports fan, keep half an eye peeled and will pay closer attention if the Caps should somehow, finally, make it to the Finals this time around.  Will be paying more attention to the NBA playoffs and nascent baseball season.

Still, go Caps...and whoever lovehockey roots for...Ottawa or Calgary maybe? Can't remember but know her affiliation has been declared here previously.  :-)

Since I won't clutter the Caps thread with my answer to paragraph #2:

The Edmonton Oilers and the Winnipeg Jets.  I may cheer for Calgary if somehow at some point in the future they play Toronto in the Stanley Cup final.

I am pro-Canada in the playoffs with the exception of two teams, which will come as a shock:  Toronto and Calgary.  On the other hand, I do appreciate that Calgary got Winnipeg into the playoffs by beating the Kings last night.  Edmonton helped the Jets out too on Tuesday by also beating the Kings.  Given Jets 1.0's playoff experiences trying to get out of the Smythe Division in the 1980s/early 90s, Jets fans don't thank the Oilers or the Flames a whole lot.  The last time Winnipeg hosted a playoff game was 1996, and it was the last game Jets 1.0 played there before going to Arizona.  This is Jets 2.0's first visit to the playoffs since the team moved from Atlanta.  I can't imagine how much tickets will get on the secondary market, but four figures per seat, easily.  If you can, watch a playoff game from there.  It'll be insane.

Of note:  The Kings, who won the Stanley Cup last season, will miss the playoffs.  The last time this happened was Carolina after they won the Cup in 2006.  They beat the Oilers in 7 games.

Since Al Dente started it:  What's the difference between the Calgary Flames and a bra?  A bra has two cups.

[Pool Boy]

There are only a few hockey teams I really do not mind if they crash and burn -- PIttsburgh and Detroit. Well, maybe Philadelphia too.

Detroit because they swept the Caps in 1998 in the Stanley Cup finals.

Philadelphia because too many of their fans gum up Verizon Center for Caps home games involving them.

And Pittsburgh because.....just because. Too many reasons to count. Their only redeeming quality is that Frank Ruta loves them so and that counts a lot.

[lovehockey]

What are the 1-through-4 holes?!

"Islanders vs. Capitals 2015 Finals Score, NHL Playoffs: Washington Wins Game 7 To Advance" by Mark Sandritter on sbnation.com

Sorry, Don, just saw this.  Most of the holes are based on the positions of the gloves, which means that even though their definitions remain the same, the hole numbers can switch sides depending on the goalie.  For example, Goalie A wears his blocker and holds his stick in his right hand.  Therefore, the 1-hole will be on his lower right, which is "low to the stick side."  If Goalie B wears his blocker and holds his stick in his left hand, the 1-hole will be on his lower left.

My younger brother, who is a goalie, gave me the name of someone he considers to be an authority on goaltending, and we discovered that he happens to be the Capitals' goalie coach.  An article he wrote about the subject is linked here.  He mentions holes 1 through 6; there is now a 7-hole, which is between the catching glove and the body (opposite side of the 6-hole).

[lovehockey]

Learn something new every day.  I always thought it was Laughlin who  came up with that 5 hole expression himself. "Putting the biscuit between the pipes through the five hole" can certainly have many meanings to the non-hockey trained ears. 

Numbering the holes has been around for a long time, although 6 and 7 are the newer ones.  One of the benefits of numbering is that it's useful for teaching goaltending.  It's also good for stats purposes and opposition research (ie. determining goalie weaknesses and where best to shoot).

I think the 5-hole is the best known for several reasons:

1) It sounds more interesting than "The puck went between the goalie's legs";

2) It's faster to say than the longer phrase in #1; and

3) It's the easiest hole to explain.  It doesn't involve knowing which glove is on which hand and "between the legs" is universally understood.

[DonRocks]

I have a very basic question, and instead of looking it up, I'm going to ask our experts, because if I don't know the answer, then others may not either.

The Washington Capitals played 82 games this season, and their record was 45-26. I know the rules for ties changed in recent years, but can someone please explain what the rule is now, and when it was instituted? You can see their won-loss record doesn't add up to 82 games.

Thanks in advance - I honestly don't know this answer.

[lovehockey]

Before 2005, each team got a point at the end of OT if it was tied.  That was it.  No shootout.  If you won the game in regulation or OT, 2 points.  Loser got nothing.

When they changed the rule, it became two points to a team that wins in regulation, overtime or the shootout; one point to a team that lost in overtime or the shootout; and no points to a team that lost in regulation.

The stats these days will include OT wins and OT losses to reflect the points problem.

[DonRocks]

Before 2005, each team got a point at the end of OT if it was tied.  That was it.  No shootout.  If you won the game in regulation or OT, 2 points.  Loser got nothing.

When they changed the rule, it became two points to a team that wins in regulation, overtime or the shootout; one point to a team that lost in overtime or the shootout; and no points to a team that lost in regulation.

The stats these days will include OT wins and OT losses to reflect the points problem.

Thanks lovehockey, but forgetting "points," the W-L still doesn't add up to 82. Is that because of ties?

Never mind; I see. W + L + OT = 82, always. I mis-added, and came up with W + L = 81 instead of 71 - hence, my confusion.

So does a "W" or an "L" mean that the game was decided in regulation? I guess either way, the only that matters is total points (tie-breaking rules aside).

[lovehockey]

Thanks lovehockey, but forgetting "points," the W-L still doesn't add up to 82. Is that because of ties?

Screenshot 2015-04-30 at 01.38.54.png

Never mind; I see. W + L + OT = 82, always. I mis-added, and came up with W + L = 81 instead of 71 - hence, my confusion.

So does a "W" or an "L" mean that the game was decided in regulation? I guess either way, the only that matters is total points (tie-breaking rules aside).

There is W, L and OTL (overtime loss).

The bane of my existence, the Edmonton Oilers, had 24 wins in regulation this season.  Times 2, 48 points.  Overtime losses, 14, which equals 14 points.  End of season points?  62.

[Pool Boy]

THere have been lots of rules changes over the years. The focus on reducing dirty hits and fighting was more of an officiating enforcement change. Getting rid of the two-line pass rule helped speed up and open up the game a bit.

I still get confused over when something is called the short side of the net versus not (long side?). Is short side the side of the goalie's glove side? Or is it the side closest to the press calling the game (across from the benches)?

[darkstar965]

I still get confused over when something is called the short side of the net versus not (long side?). Is short side the side of the goalie's glove side? Or is it the side closest to the press calling the game (across from the benches)?

Great question. I've long wondered about that too. Took a few years when I was a kid to even understand how/when icing was called. Of course, that was before the interwebs. How did we survive? :-)

[JPW]

Short side = upright closest to the puck

Long side =  upright farthest from the puck

[DonRocks]

He mentions holes 1 through 6; there is now a 7-hole, which is between the catching glove and the body (opposite side of the 6-hole).

Are people that precise, where they can aim and shoot through the 7-hole?!

Also, what is a butterfly and half-butterfly? I have a feeling it has something to do with the goalie sprawling out, but I don't know what.

This is awesome - I've always wanted to know these things. I'm going to start a thread on automotive engines next.

Short side = upright closest to the puck

Long side =  upright farthest from the puck

I don't understand this - "upright" means ... what?

Is it "short" because the goalie prowls the part of the net closest to the puck, creating a shorter gap?

[darkstar965]

...

I don't understand this - "upright" means ... what?

Is it "short" because the goalie prowls the part of the net closest to the puck, creating a shorter gap?

We'll see what jpw or lovehockey say (I'm no expert) but think the uprights are simply the two vertical bars on either side of the goal giving it its height. And, believe you're right about "shorter gap." Definitionally, the puck would nearly always have "short"er distance to one upright than to the other?

[JPW]

Yes, uprights = vertical posts of net. I'm not 100% on the exact origin, but darkstar965 has it right - it's a matter of distance.

Yes, you'll aim for a specific hole. Achieving that is another question. It's kind of like trying to hit a line with a serve in tennis.

In high school, we would have competitions at the end of practice to see who could hit the post the most with slapshots from the blue line

Watch this to see how accurate the pros can be:

[DonRocks]

Yes, uprights = vertical posts of net.

Oh! Of course - I was thinking adverb, not noun (as in, the goalie is standing upright, closest to the puck - and it didn't make any sense). My idiocy, sorry.

[lovehockey]

Yes, uprights = vertical posts of net.

They're most commonly known as the posts or goalposts.  The horizontal bar is known as the crossbar.

[lovehockey]

Are people that precise, where they can aim and shoot through the 7-hole?!

Also, what is a butterfly and half-butterfly? I have a feeling it has something to do with the goalie sprawling out, but I don't know what.

This is awesome - I've always wanted to know these things. I'm going to start a thread on automotive engines next.

Precision often coupled with luck.

As for butterfly vs. half-butterfly, let's go back to our new goalie consultant, Mitch Korn.  The definitions quoted below come from here:

BUTTERFLY: An overused term. It is when a goalie drops allowing both pads to extend out to the side and with the 5-hole closed (or almost closed). The majority of the lower portion of the net is covered, and the goalies holes are shut down. Just because a goalie drops to his/her knees, does not mean they are butterfly goalies.

HALF BUTTERFLY: Probably the most used save. A "half" is the extension of one pad, while the other pad firmly supports the body. This should be able to be accomplished while stationary, moving forward, backward, laterally, from a shuffle, and while turning to remain square using the "Y" theory.

Y-THEORY: The most efficient use of telescoping, staying square, and using the proper save selections. When done properly, the goalie's motion resembles a "Y". . . out, back, and diagonal toward the post.

Me here again:  Butterfly is not a style as much as a matter of save selection.  It was very rarely seen prior to the 1970s, when a few people, like Vladislav Tretiak and Tony Esposito, used it.  The primary save method was stand-up, and if you watch old clips you'll notice it.  The butterfly save went away until Patrick Roy showed up, and now it's everywhere.

The half-butterfly is best described as one pad out, another pad on the ice for support.  It often looks like a triangle.

Changes in equipment and other factors over the past number of years have led to variations on the butterfly being used by a number of goalies today.

[darkstar965]

Yes, uprights = vertical posts of net. I'm not 100% on the exact origin, but darkstar965 has it right - it's a matter of distance.

Yes, you'll aim for a specific hole. Achieving that is another question. It's kind of like trying to hit a line with a serve in tennis.

In high school, we would have competitions at the end of practice to see who could hit the post the most with slapshots from the blue line

Watch this to see how accurate the pros can be:

...

This is very cool!  Not being a big hockey fan, had never seen this part of the AS Game before.  In some ways, I think it more impressive than the homerun contest at baseball's All-Star Game or the slam-dunk contest at the NBA game since those are more function of strength and build respectively.  Skill too but not to the degree this is.

They're most commonly known as the posts or goalposts.  The horizontal bar is known as the crossbar.

Just like (North American) football on the former a global football (aka soccer) goal on the latter, sports I know better than hockey.

[DonRocks]

I watch more basketball than hockey so I only watched the series in bits and pieces.  I'm convinced that many goals in hockey are a function of luck, being in the right place, hustle, getting your stick on puck a micro second before the opposition, hustle, etc etc.  Its tough to score in hockey  and tougher in the playoffs with everyone diving to block shots on top of tougher defenses and goalies possibly rising to a higher level.

Having said all that, this last series was excruciatingly tough, tremendously close, played on both sides with a lot of heart and effort;  The Caps of this year played differently and looked differently than last year...   Miserable series to lose...but one that had to generate a lot of mutual respect.

@ Caps.  Rest up and go kick their arses next year!!!!!!!

Hockey is like soccer or backgammon in that most "scores" do involve some luck, but like those other two, the better opponent will be in position more often to capitalize on that luck. It's very frustrating to see an opponent dominating with better position throughout the game, only to have some freak incident (a steal that happens because of an errant ricochet, rolling double 4's, etc.) result in a disadvantaged opponent winning.

[DaveO]

Hockey is like soccer or backgammon in that most "scores" do involve some luck, but like those other two, the better opponent will be in position more often to capitalize on that luck. It's very frustrating to see an opponent dominating with better position throughout the game, only to have some freak incident (a steal that happens because of an errant ricochet, rolling double 4's, etc.) result in a disadvantaged opponent winning. 

Having played a lot of soccer in a variety of competitive leagues that is very true.  There are times you are on a team completely dominating the other side and simply for a hundred different reasons such as hitting posts, the slightest of mis hits, some errant sucker getting his body in the way of a shot, a goalie playing his best, and a hundred different situations your dominant team can't score.

Alternatively when the other side is running you ragged and you feel as if they have two more players on the field and dominate the ball 90% of the time, your team manages through luck and circumstance to keep them from scoring....you come out of that game feeling inappropriately better than you are when simply the scoring gods were favoring your team that day.

Excruciating "stuff".   The worst is when the scoring gods turn against you in the 7th game of a tremendously close competitive series as with the 2015 Caps, and they get edged out by the other side.   That takes a good long while from which to recuperate.

[u-bet!]

Boston Bruins post-cup winning celebration bar tab from 2011. 

[Tweaked]

The NHL Playoff Schedule is the most bloated in sports...this year it was two months long featuring a combined 89 games (the NHL regular season is 82 games).

The Stanley Cup should be wrapped up by mid- April latest...instead that's when the playoffs start.

[DonRocks]

The NHL Playoff Schedule is the most bloated in sports...this year it was two months long featuring a combined 89 games (the NHL regular season is 82 games).

The Stanley Cup should be wrapped up by mid- April latest...instead that's when the playoffs start.

Come on, man, you don't like ice hockey in June?

[JPW]

Don, All the rules that you need to learn about hockey can be learned here.

[DonRocks]

Don, All the rules that you need to learn about hockey can be learned here.

Peter Puck, eh? This sounds like a hockey version of "Schoolhouse Rock!"

I like how his body is completely separated from his arms and legs.

"Why didn't I listen to my mother and become a bicycle tire?"

Two questions:

1) Are both types of off-sides penalties called or signaled the same way, or is there a way to tell from what the referee (referee?) does? Does each one of them have its own name? I always thought the "two-line" off-sides was icing.

2) I've seen icing (sending the puck down the full length of the rink) many times when one team is down a man during a power-play, and they're trying to kill the clock, or at least I think I have - why isn't it called? Peter also doesn't give an exact definition of what the infraction entails.

This silly little cartoon is *exactly* the level of instruction that I need.

[JPW]

1) Off sides = The  puck must completely pass the blue line farther away from your own goal before both skates of anyone on your team are over the line. One skate good. Two skates bad.

(PP is kind of out of date with the rules, the two line pass whistle doesn't exist anymore, but, c'mon it's Peter Puck!)

2) If your team is short-handed icing doesn't exist. Only if it is equal strength or you are on the power play. Don't know the exact history of the rule, but it makes sense to give the team that's a man down some way to take the heat out of the kitchen.

[DonRocks]

1) Off sides = The  puck must completely pass the blue line farther away from your own goal before both skates of anyone on your team are over the line. One skate good. Two skates bad.

(PP is kind of out of date with the rules, the two line pass whistle doesn't exist anymore, but, c'mon it's Peter Puck!)

2) If your team is short-handed icing doesn't exist. Only if it is equal strength or you are on the power play. Don't know the exact history of the rule, but it makes sense to give the team that's a man down some way to take the heat out of the kitchen.

Got it.

If 1 millimeter of one blade of one skate is touching the blue line when the puck crosses, is it off-sides? I'll bet there have been some calls for instant replay on judgment calls such as this. (Is there instant replay in the NHL?)

So what are the specific rules for icing? I suspect it involves the puck crossing a certain number of lines without being touched by another player.

[JPW]

Got it.

If 1 millimeter of one blade of one skate is touching the blue line when the puck crosses, is it off-sides? I'll bet there have been some calls for instant replay on judgment calls such as this. (Is there instant replay in the NHL?)

So what are the specific rules for icing? I suspect it involves the puck crossing a certain number of lines without being touched by another player.

Need to go to bed. I've got a 6 am spinning class to get to and need to lift before, so turning it off after this.

Yes, one mm is good. No, no instant replay on this call. IR only on goal/no goal.

Icing is a puck from behind the blue line closest to your goal to over the goal line on the other end. Until 3(?) years ago, the other team had to touch the puck before the whistle blew. This led to a lot of potentially career ending collisions, so now refs have the discretion to make a judgement call. I wish this rule was in place when I was in HS or college. Thankfully no film exists of the multiple concussions I sustained through these races to the puck.

[lovehockey]

Offside is called by the linesman whistling the play dead and pointing at the blue line (he stretches his arm out fully and points at the line).  If there is no offside call to be made because the puck went into the defensive zone before the attacking team did, he will make a "wash out" call, which is throwing his arms out to the sides, parallel to the ice.

Linesmen don't always get offside right, because sometimes the play is very close.

Explaining a two-line pass offside was a pain.  I'm glad I don't have to do so these days.

P.S. To me and many other fans of the Edmonton Oilers, "Peter Puck" is Peter Pocklington, longtime owner of the Oilers who helped bring Wayne Gretzky there, and was the owner for all five Stanley Cups.  He also traded Wayne Gretzky to LA in 1988 (Mrs. Gretzky has taken some blame as well for that trade).  Because of all sorts of issues he had to put the team up for sale in the 1990s and the Oilers nearly moved as a result.  He's been in some legal trouble for a while...

[DonRocks]

Offside is called by the linesman whistling the play dead and pointing at the blue line (he stretches his arm out fully and points at the line).  If there is no offside call to be made because the puck went into the defensive zone before the attacking team did, he will make a "wash out" call, which is throwing his arms out to the sides, parallel to the ice.

Linesmen don't always get offside right, because sometimes the play is very close.

Explaining a two-line pass offside was a pain.  I'm glad I don't have to do so these days.

P.S. To me and many other fans of the Edmonton Oilers, "Peter Puck" is Peter Pocklington, longtime owner of the Oilers who helped bring Wayne Gretzky there, and was the owner for all five Stanley Cups.  He also traded Wayne Gretzky to LA in 1988 (Mrs. Gretzky has taken some blame as well for that trade).  Because of all sorts of issues he had to put the team up for sale in the 1990s and the Oilers nearly moved as a result.  He's been in some legal trouble for a while...

The good thing about this tutorial is that I'm starting from a base of *zero*, but I have a logical mind, so I can ask all the right questions.

Are you saying that a "wash-out" call was originally an *incorrect* "off-sides" call, but that the official corrected himself? Or is it that there *was* a legitimate off-sides, but the conditions reversed themselves after the infraction was committed? (The latter seems unlikely because once an infraction is committed, it can't be un-committed, right?)

The ambiguity to me is that I don't know what you mean when you say "defensive zone." Is it the defensive zone of the attacking team (the team that went off-sides), or the defending team (the blue line where the off-sides supposedly occurred)? And what line constitutes the border of the defensive zone? I'm assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that it's one of the two blue lines.

Do you understand the reason I don't understand?

Thank you both, by the way - this is not a waste of your time. The only reason I'm not a legitimate hockey, soccer, or cricket fan is because I don't know the rules.

(You may also soon realize that there are several things in this world about which I'm a legitimate, world-class expert; many things I know a lot about, and also many things about which I know very, very little, and that covers 99% of the things there are. I usually try to go for total knowledge, or not go at all - I don't like knowing just small amounts about a given subject in which I'm interested - that's just my personal quirk and a personality flaw. It often means I'm either an expert or a novice in any given subject, and is something I'm trying to overcome. I inherently tend to be a "completist" (refer to the Ingmar Bergman retrospective - we couldn't find his third film, so we've stopped), but once you admit there isn't an infinite lifespan, being a completist makes no sense, so I'm trying to change my ways.)

Also, are there five people per team on the ice? What are the positions called? I realize I could look this up, but I want other illiterates to learn as well.

[lovehockey]

Answers:

1) A "wash-out" call (just throw the arms out to the sides) is not an "oops" call.  The linesman is either going to point at the blue line and whistle the play down because it's offside or by the wash-out let the players and everyone else know that the play is on-side.  But as mentioned, they're not perfect so sometimes they make the wrong call.

2) As for "defensive zone":  Here is a diagram of a playing surface.  The red line that splits the rink in half is the center line.  The two blue lines indicate the start of each team's defensive zone, or the "border" as you described it (you know it's a particular team's defensive zone because that's where the team's goalie is parked).  The space in the middle of the blue lines (which also has the center line going through it) is known as the neutral zone.

Looking at the diagram, let's say Team A has the defensive zone on the left, so its goalie is in the net on the left.  Therefore, Team B has the defensive zone on the right.  Team A gets possession of the puck in its defensive zone and goes on the attack, skating from left to right.  They go through the neutral zone.  Before they cross that blue line that indicates the start of Team B's defensive zone, they have to make sure the puck goes in first.  The players on Team B can do whatever they want.  The onus is on Team A not to screw up.

Furthermore, if Team A is in Team B's zone and the puck escapes into the neutral zone, Team A has to cross back over the blue line in order to be "onside" again.

For a great tutorial, partly because the players are kids and therefore going a bit slower, look at this.

3) There are six players per side on the ice.  Each side has a goalie and two defencemen.  There are three forwards:  The first is the center.  To his left is the left-winger, and to his right is the right-winger.

[DonRocks]

The onus is on Team A not to screw up.

Furthermore, if Team A is in Team B's zone and the puck escapes into the neutral zone, Team A has to cross back over the blue line in order to be "onside" again.

Really?! If I'm reading you correctly, that must be *exhausting* if players are beyond the opponent's goal line, and the puck leaks into the neutral zone, if only for a second - they have to skate back to the blue line no matter what? I guess this implies that players must be aware of where the puck is at all times; otherwise, it could sneak back into the neutral zone and they wouldn't know it. Are there any lights on any scoreboards they can look up to and see what the status of the situation is?

Can I infer that if a player is breaking away, they must use a little extra caution when crossing the blue line to keep the puck in front of them? (I guess that's probably second nature on a high level.)

The amazing thing is that I've probably seen 5-10 hockey games live and have never known any of this.

(*) Drawing on what Joe said above, can they just touch the blue line with a piece of their blade, and then head back towards the goal? Or do they need to get both blades completely back into the neutral zone?

[lovehockey]

Really?! If I'm reading you correctly, that must be *exhausting* if players are beyond the opponent's goal line, and the puck leaks into the neutral zone, if only for a second - they have to skate back to the blue line no matter what? I guess this implies that players must be aware of where the puck is at all times; otherwise, it could sneak back into the neutral zone and they wouldn't know it. Are there any lights on any scoreboards they can look up to and see what the status of the situation is?

Yes, if the puck leaks into the neutral zone everyone on Team A (the attacking team) has to "clear the zone", aka. get out of Team B's zone.  Once everyone on Team A gets back over the blue line, they can turn around and go back in.  This is especially frustrating when it happens on a power play.

In the case of the puck leaking out, one or both of the linesman will raise an arm straight up in the air to warn Team A that they are in danger of being called for offside.  (Yelling about the problem can and will also occur, from various sources.)  Once everyone from Team A clears the zone the arm(s) will come down.   If a linesman's arm is up with the offside warning, the puck ends back up in Team B's defensive zone, and someone on Team A who has not cleared the zone touches it, then the play is whistled dead and the next faceoff occurs in the neutral zone.

As we crassly called it in school, the whole purpose of the offside rule is to prevent what we called "goal sucking", which is parking a player at the other end of the ice for the purpose of loitering.

There are no lights to indicate an offside or anything else besides the red light that goes on when a goal is scored.  Players have to pay attention to what's going on.  As another example, when a power play is about to come to an end you'll hear the goalie of the team on the power play smacking his stick on the ice to tell his teammates it's about to end and the penalized player is about to come back on the ice.

Can I infer that if a player is breaking away, they must use a little extra caution when crossing the blue line to keep the puck in front of them? (I guess that's probably second nature on a high level.)

Yes.  And it's another reason I'm glad I don't have to explain the two-line pass offside anymore.

(*) Drawing on what Joe said above, can they just touch the blue line with a piece of their blade, and then head back towards the goal? Or do they need to get both blades completely back into the neutral zone?

In the case of bailing out of the zone because the puck leaked out, both blades out.  Joe can correct me here if I'm wrong about what he meant, but "one skate good, two skates bad" to me refers to the fact that when Team A is on the attack and going into Team B's zone, sometimes you'll see a player who is ahead of the teammate(s) who have the puck.  Instead of coming to a halt at the blue line he'll just glide along it, with one foot in the neutral zone and one foot in Team B's zone or on the blue line itself.  Once the puck goes in he'll enter the zone.  The linesmen will let that go because he held up; although he's breaking the letter of the law he kept the spirit of the law.

[DonRocks]

In the case of the puck leaking out, one or both of the linesman will raise an arm straight up in the air to warn Team A that they are in danger of being called for offside.  (Yelling about the problem can and will also occur, from various sources.)  Once everyone from Team A clears the zone the arm(s) will come down.   If a linesman's arm is up with the offside warning, the puck ends back up in Team B's defensive zone, and someone on Team A who has not cleared the zone touches it, then the play is whistled dead and the next faceoff occurs in the neutral zone.

This is so helpful - I hope you don't mind that your answers are prompting further questions.

If Team A is trying to get back to the neutral zone, and the puck goes back into Team B's defensive zone, must *everyone* from Team A get back into the neutral zone before one of Team A's players touches it? Or only the player that touches it? If you read your final quoted sentence, it's left a little ambiguous.

I actually feel like I'm starting to understand things!

Assuming everyone must retreat to the neutral zone, and the puck ends up in Team B's defensive zone, what do Team A's players do while they're waiting for their teammates to clear the blue line?

Boy, I can see a *lot* of close calls and arguments with these rules. Is it possible to play hockey without officials? I guess it's no different than a pickup baseball game.

Can't wait to get into why and when it's okay to slam someone into the glass!

[lovehockey]

Yes, everyone on Team A has to clear the zone.

Assuming everyone must retreat to the neutral zone, and the puck ends up in Team B's defensive zone, what do Team A's players do while they're waiting for their teammates to clear the blue line?

Regroup.  There are a lot of set plays that teams will rehearse.  If they have to leave the defensive zone and resume the attack, they'll get themselves organized.

Boy, I can see a *lot* of close calls and arguments with these rules. Is it possible to play hockey without officials? I guess it's no different than a pickup baseball game.

Sure, you can play without officials.  Pickup hockey.

Can't wait to get into why and when it's okay to slam someone into the glass!

That's a whole other kettle of fish.  Hockey philosophy, international vs. league hockey, minor hockey, women's vs. men's hockey.  Complicated.

[DonRocks]

On 4/30/2015 at 0:36 AM, lovehockey said:

Before 2005, each team got a point at the end of OT if it was tied.  That was it.  No shootout.  If you won the game in regulation or OT, 2 points.  Loser got nothing.

When they changed the rule, it became two points to a team that wins in regulation, overtime or the shootout; one point to a team that lost in overtime or the shootout; and no points to a team that lost in regulation.

The stats these days will include OT wins and OT losses to reflect the points problem.

What do you all think of this rule? I kind of like it in principle - how is it working in practice? It seems fair to me, adding excitement, but not penalizing a team too much for an overtime loss.

Why did they do away with ties? Because nobody likes a tie? Sort of like having sex withou ... oh, never mind.

Is there a good link explaining the overtime process?

[weezy]

I like the new OT rules.  It's a short OT, not a full 20-minute period, and sudden victory, plus it's 3-on-3 play, so it's a very fast, shooter's game

[weezy]

23 minutes ago, DonRocks said:

What do you all think of this rule? I kind of like it in principle - how is it working in practice? It seems fair to me, adding excitement, but not penalizing a team too much for an overtime loss.

Why did they do away with ties? Because nobody likes a tie? Sort of like having sex withou ... oh, never mind.

Is there a good link explaining the overtime process?

Try this one:  http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/eye-on-hockey/25357275/-on-3-overtime-is-doing-exactly-what-the-nhl-hoped-it-would-do

[lovehockey]

Regular season, it's 3-3 OT for 5 minutes before a shootout.

Playoffs, 5-5, keep going until someone scores.

[DonRocks]

If you have Hulu, go to Season 2, Episode 3 ("Judith") of "The Saint," and watch the cold opening. Trust me!