Search Amazon.com:
Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«46 »
  • Post
  • Reply
myron cope
Apr 21, 2009

This is going to end badly for the owners. Very badly.


Levitate posted:

someone should punch Howard Baldwin in the face

I don't think Pens fans need a(nother) reason to punch Howard Baldwin in the face. Although without him and his bankruptcy and his deferring player salaries and whatnot, I guess that wouldn't have given us Lemieux as owner?

Thufir posted:

I'm pretty sure Nashville doesn't own the Milwaukee Admirals but they definitely get to call the shots.

How does this work then? Is it just something agreed to when they affiliated?

Lovie Unsmith posted:

Does that mean we'll get to see Owen Nolan et al in Chicago soon?
Nah, Nolan and Dimitrakos were on tryout contracts. Legace was on a tryout, too. Anyone not on a tryout though, yeah, they'll be going to Chicago.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Pr0phecy
Apr 3, 2006


Had my first game of the season last week and poo poo, incredible blisters and cuts on my feet. I also think that my U+ Pro's will break at the eyelet soon and I can't go back to $150 skates . Gonna spend entire paychecks on skates I guess.

Perdido
Apr 29, 2009

CORY SCHNEIDER IS FAR MORE MENTALLY STABLE THAN LUONGO AND CAN HANDLE THE PRESSURES OF GOALTENDING IN VANCOUVER


SubCrid TC posted:

Of the players that have played in the NHL, most have only played a couple of games and most were drafted.

Of those that actually had a career, most are goalies. Because you pretty much only have two spots on a team, and lots of AHL teams like having one veteran AHL guy around and goalies can have a longer development time. You have a lot of young legitimate goalie prospects who actually play in the ECHL.

Of the recognizable skaters, quite a few are goons.

Alex Burrows is the only guy I can think of that went undrafted and actually started with an ECHL contract.

Some guys have come undrafted out of junior or the NCAA and been signed to an NHL or AHL contract and played a couple of games in the ECHL under those contracts before ending up in the NHL, but they were loans to the ECHL.

Yeah, the ECHL is two steps below the NHL. That said, with the increased focus on player development and the efforts from NHL teams to try and find alternative means of acquiring new players, the ECHL might become a sort of 'bargain bin' for GMs to rifle through.

quote:

I seem to remember reading something about the Chicago Wolves being a particularly independent AHL team and thus being a lovely affiliate because they bring in NHL vets on AHL contracts and prospects don't necessarily get the most playing time.

e: sorta beaten about the wolves.

The Wolves were an interesting situation. Atlanta was a poorly run organisation from top to bottom and it bled into their prospect development. In other words, they didn't really do much to help the Wolves out or do much for their own prospects. It didn't really affect Chicago, as they are one of the better run teams in the AHL, but it had the side effect of them not giving much of a gently caress about the guys Atlanta did send them.

And people wonder why Atlanta was such a poo poo organization, despite being a perennial lottery team.

Perdido fucked around with this message at Sep 27, 2011 around 17:16

Thufir
May 19, 2004

"The fucking Mayans were right."

Pr0phecy posted:

Had my first game of the season last week and poo poo, incredible blisters and cuts on my feet. I also think that my U+ Pro's will break at the eyelet soon and I can't go back to $150 skates . Gonna spend entire paychecks on skates I guess.

Come over to the playing thread and tell us what size shinguards you wear!

http://forums.somethingawful.com/sh...hreadid=3395347

Green Submarine
Oct 21, 2000

There will come soft rains...

Pr0phecy posted:

I also think that my U+ Pro's will break at the eyelet soon and I can't go back to $150 skates .

I can't speak to the U series, but CCM fixed the eyelet problem on Tacks in the early 2000s. I used to lose them all the time before the 2002 line, so unless you have some particular eyelets that look like they're on their way out, you might be okay.

In general, to reduce the risk of losing eyelets, always air out your skates. Take them out of your bag a soon as you get home and leave them out until you play next. Also, to protect your rivets, remove the insoles while airing them out. We're talking several extra years of life if you take those simple precautions.

Sumixam
Jun 9, 2004

Always got to wash them at their ends.

There should be a section in the OP about the differences between the game in NHL/North America and Europe/Olympics.

Topics to be discussed could include rink dimensions, rule differences, etc., and their subsequent effects on the game itself.

A large part of being a hockey fan is arguing whether International rules are "better" and whether or not the NHL should adopt some or all of them. Furthermore announcers/commentators often mention things like "hybrid icing", which only makes sense if you understand NHL icing and Olympic no-touch icing (for instance).

sellouts
Apr 23, 2003



Olympic rinks are loving death to play on

gigabitnokie
Dec 2, 2008


sellouts posted:

Olympic rinks are loving death to play on

I love them. And 7-2 victories

Habibi
Dec 8, 2004

Hockey is a game of love, man.


sellouts posted:

Olympic rinks are loving death to play on

You're thinking of lava rinks.

Legerdemain
May 3, 2007

Maybe there's something wrong with me, Nanny.

Is there a rule against using a broken stick? Like if the head breaks off, it can still be used to poke at the puck and stuff. But it seems like guys just throw it away and skate around uselessly until they make a change.

Zat
Jan 15, 2008
Hehheee

Legerdemain posted:

Is there a rule against using a broken stick? Like if the head breaks off, it can still be used to poke at the puck and stuff. But it seems like guys just throw it away and skate around uselessly until they make a change.

Yeah, you get a penalty unless you do.

Largo LaForge
Oct 4, 2008



Zat posted:

Yeah, you get a penalty unless you do.
Yup.

This reminded me of a rule disparity between the NHL and IIHF books about helmets. While you can play without it in the NHL if it get knocked off, according to international rules the player must put his helmet back on or head to the bench. This actually resulted in Finland's 1-0 goal against the Czech in the olympics. Kubina, who was covering the front of the net, left to get his helmet from behind the net on the PK and left Hagman alone to redirect Niskala's shot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...klq32PqXs#t=59s

Largo LaForge fucked around with this message at Sep 30, 2011 around 09:55

Thel
Apr 28, 2010



Legerdemain posted:

Is there a rule against using a broken stick? Like if the head breaks off, it can still be used to poke at the puck and stuff. But it seems like guys just throw it away and skate around uselessly until they make a change.

As soon as you break a stick (it doesn't have to be two pieces, as long as it's bent in a way a hockey stick was never meant to bend), you have to drop it. If you use it in any way it's an automatic two minutes for unsportsmanlike conduct.

Also, a stick-less player isn't entirely useless, they can still pressure and play the body.

Random trivia: under NHL rules (not sure about IIHF rules) a player is allowed to carry two sticks, as long as they don't try and play the puck while carrying said pair (mostly only useful for a forward to ferry a stick to a d-man - although more common is for the forward to give the d-man his stick then grab a fresh one from the bench).

Thufir
May 19, 2004

"The fucking Mayans were right."

Legerdemain posted:

Is there a rule against using a broken stick? Like if the head breaks off, it can still be used to poke at the puck and stuff. But it seems like guys just throw it away and skate around uselessly until they make a change.

Broken sticks are dangerous to play with so players are required to drop them. I believe goalies are allowed to keep using a broken stick until the next stoppage though.

xzzy
Mar 5, 2009

Tonight's starting lineup is
brought to you by Satan.


Largo LaForge posted:

Yup.

This reminded me of a rule disparity between the NHL and IIHF books about helmets. While you can play without it in the NHL if it get knocked off, according to international rules the player must put his helmet back on or head to the bench.

The NHL has some rules about entering the ice without a helmet though.. last year I saw a game where a player lost his helmet, finished his shift, sat through a line change, and came back out on the ice sans bucket.

Refs threw a shitfit when the whistle finally blew and he could go collect his gear. No penalty was given but it took a lot of explaining his case.

Legerdemain
May 3, 2007

Maybe there's something wrong with me, Nanny.

Thanks duders. I must say, I'm pretty new to hockey and still can't follow the action completely like in some other sports, but I've been converted in a big way. It seriously is the best sport. For years hockey was just a lot of chaos to me, but now I see that the strategy, balance, and mechanics are really incomparable. Like spending entire shifts or more, just gradually pushing and pushing the defense until an opening appears... it's beautiful. And a million other things but I'm still new and don't really know what I'm talking about.

Anyway, how about dropped sticks? Can an opposing player just smack it to the other side of the ice? If a ref picks it up to get it out of the way, can the player take it back or does he have to get a new one?

ElwoodCuse
Jan 11, 2004

we're puttin' the band back together

If a player drops a stick and an opponent swats it away it can result in a minor penalty for interference. It has to be blatant, though.

It's also illegal to throw or slide a stick and if you do it at the puck it's a penalty shot.

Thufir
May 19, 2004

"The fucking Mayans were right."

Legerdemain posted:

Anyway, how about dropped sticks? Can an opposing player just smack it to the other side of the ice? If a ref picks it up to get it out of the way, can the player take it back or does he have to get a new one?

Under rule 56 - Interference "A minor penalty shall be imposed on a player who deliberately knocks a stick out of an opponent’s hand, or who prevents a player who has dropped his stick or any other piece of equipment from regaining possession of it.

A minor penalty shall be imposed on a player who knocks or shoots any abandoned or broken stick or illegal puck or other debris towards an opposing puck carrier in a manner that could cause him to be distracted. (See also Rule 53 – Throwing Equipment.)"

A player can retrieve his own dropped stick or go to the bench for another, whichever he wants. Another player can move a dropped stick out of the way as long as he's not preventing the owner from picking it up or shooting it at someone. I don't think I've ever seen a player take a stick from a ref that picked it up. Usually refs don't pick them up during play and I can't imagine they would if it looked like the player might want to get it back.

Vital Signs
Oct 17, 2007

bump-bump...bump-bump...bumppppppppp......


It's fairly typical for a broken stick to be put in a passing lane until the next whistle, but what I'm sure is not common is someone shattering the stick even further after a shot goes directly off of it while it's in the lane. Good lord that thing got messed up. Pieces everywhere.

myron cope
Apr 21, 2009

This is going to end badly for the owners. Very badly.


ElwoodCuse posted:

It's also illegal to throw or slide a stick and if you do it at the puck it's a penalty shot.
Unless it's done at a player/puck going for an empty net, then it's an awarded goal!

Scrotos
Sep 8, 2003




Is there a service that I can watch all hockey games on my PS3, similar to DirectTV football package or MLB.TV? I am too cheap to pay for cable but like watching sports on my PS3.




vvv thanks, well that sucks. The MLB/NFL ones are awesome. I know it will not let me watch more Blackhawks games but thats fine. I just want to watch more hockey to get better at following the in game action. Guess I will wait to see if this years PS3 app is better.

Scrotos fucked around with this message at Sep 30, 2011 around 16:15

Thufir
May 19, 2004

"The fucking Mayans were right."

Scrotos posted:

Is there a service that I can watch all hockey games on my PS3, similar to DirectTV football package or MLB.TV? I am too cheap to pay for cable but like watching sports on my PS3.

If you buy NHL Gamecenter there is a PS3 app. Some caveats:

1. Games that are broadcast nationally or locally in your area will be blacked out on Gamecenter. So, if you want to watch the home team you're out of luck. I think past the 1st round all playoff games are nationally televised so those will be blacked out too.
2. You have to pay extra for the PS3 App
3. Last year the PS3 app sucked balls and was borderline unusable.

Habibi
Dec 8, 2004

Hockey is a game of love, man.


ElwoodCuse posted:

If a player drops a stick and an opponent swats it away it can result in a minor penalty for interference. It has to be blatant, though.

This needs to be emphasized. Although it's technically a penalty to push a lost/dropped/slashed stick away from the player trying to retrieve it, opposing players will try to do this all the freaking time - even with the goalie's stick.

myron cope
Apr 21, 2009

This is going to end badly for the owners. Very badly.


Sumixam posted:

There should be a section in the OP about the differences between the game in NHL/North America and Europe/Olympics.

Topics to be discussed could include rink dimensions, rule differences, etc., and their subsequent effects on the game itself.

A large part of being a hockey fan is arguing whether International rules are "better" and whether or not the NHL should adopt some or all of them. Furthermore announcers/commentators often mention things like "hybrid icing", which only makes sense if you understand NHL icing and Olympic no-touch icing (for instance).
This is from a while ago but it just popped into my head (at 2:52 on a Tuesday morning) that I haven't replied to it: I'll be glad to add a section about it, only I don't know about it! So if somebody who knows the differences would like to post about it then I will certainly add it. I'll even edit if you want!

myron cope
Apr 21, 2009

This is going to end badly for the owners. Very badly.


This was my post in tonight's GDT that went unanswered:

quote:

When someone breaks a stick like Talbot just did, why not have him just immediately go back to the bench? Yeah, he ended up blocking a shot, but otherwise he was basically useless. Either go get a new stick or get replaced? There was a spot in the Pens game yesterday where two of them broke their stick at the same point.
Talbot was killing a penalty and had his stick broken. He then proceeded to stay in the zone without a stick for a solid...30 seconds? Before the Flyers cleared it and he could get back to the bench. This was in the third period, where his bench was literally inside the zone in which he was killing the penalty.

ThinkTank
Oct 23, 2007

Please tell me I'm worthy to launder your sweaty jock Mr. Edwards!

myron_cope posted:

This was my post in tonight's GDT that went unanswered:
Talbot was killing a penalty and had his stick broken. He then proceeded to stay in the zone without a stick for a solid...30 seconds? Before the Flyers cleared it and he could get back to the bench. This was in the third period, where his bench was literally inside the zone in which he was killing the penalty.

Vacating the defensive zone while the other team is holding onto the puck in it is a very good way to get yourself benched. If Talbot had sprinted to the bench and grabbed a stick/changed it would've been a veritable 5 on 3 for 8-10 seconds, whereas with him there it's a 5 on 3.5ish for 30 seconds. It's not like he can't touch the puck while he doesn't have a stick. He can still block a shot, glove the puck (it's the defensive zone so hand passes are legal), or kick it out of the zone. It's not optimal, but it's better than not being there at all.

myron cope
Apr 21, 2009

This is going to end badly for the owners. Very badly.


I get that it would be bad, but without a stick he was just a pylon pretty much. They were already treating it as a 5-on-3 since basically it was. Only as luck would have it one of the Canucks felt like shooting when he was in the way. But it still seems like he could have at least switched sides of the ice to get closer to the bench and then they could have handed him a stick? I mean, I can at least see why you wouldn't want to risk it in the second period with the long change.

Anyway, I added a part about captains to the second post.

sellouts
Apr 23, 2003



The extra body out there on a 5-4, even without a stick, makes the entire powerplay run differently no matter how it looks. If you try to cheat to the bench to get a stick any team worth their salt is going to expose that and make you pay.

Manicured Hog
Sep 18, 2004

...and he kept stabbing them, again and again. He's a halfling, he's supposed to be jolly...Why isn't he jolly? WHY ISN'T HE JOLLY?

This is my favorite example of someone without a stick still contributing heavily to a penalty kill.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcO8X3jTGLo

xzzy
Mar 5, 2009

Tonight's starting lineup is
brought to you by Satan.


Aren't you not supposed to turn sideways to the shot like that?

Seems like a great way to destroy something important.

Rotten Cookies
Nov 11, 2008

"Everybody relax. I'm here."


xzzy posted:

Aren't you not supposed to turn sideways to the shot like that?

Seems like a great way to destroy something important.

All the Rangers do it, and they're the blockingest team in the nhl.







Though Callahan taking Chara's slapper to the ankle did him in last season.

Hand Knit
Oct 24, 2005

Beer Loses more than a game Sunday ...
We lost our Captain, our Teammate, our Friend Kelly Calabro...
Rest in Peace my friend you will be greatly missed..


Manicured Hog posted:

This is my favorite example of someone without a stick still contributing heavily to a penalty kill.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcO8X3jTGLo

5-on-3 where the defence has two without sticks for ~40 seconds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7dlxDZhkZ0

gigabitnokie
Dec 2, 2008


myron_cope posted:

I get that it would be bad, but without a stick he was just a pylon pretty much. They were already treating it as a 5-on-3 since basically it was. Only as luck would have it one of the Canucks felt like shooting when he was in the way. But it still seems like he could have at least switched sides of the ice to get closer to the bench and then they could have handed him a stick? I mean, I can at least see why you wouldn't want to risk it in the second period with the long change.

Anyway, I added a part about captains to the second post.

As a player on the PK, when you're covering the point you're basically a shot-blocking pylon anyway. The team on the PP will get to be a little lazier with their passes around you, but you're still filling your major role without a stick.

Scrotos
Sep 8, 2003




Is there a rule stoping the bench from throwing new stick out to the player instead of them having to get it?

ElwoodCuse
Jan 11, 2004

we're puttin' the band back together

Scrotos posted:

Is there a rule stoping the bench from throwing new stick out to the player instead of them having to get it?

Yes, 10.3

A player who has lost or broken his stick may only receive a stick at his own players’ bench or be handed one from a teammate on the ice. A player will be penalized if he throws, tosses, slides or shoots a stick to teammate on the ice. A player may not participate in the play using a goalkeeper’s stick. A minor penalty shall be imposed for an infraction of this rule.

A player tendered a stick thrown on the ice from the players’ or penalty bench will not receive a penalty. However, the person responsible for throwing the stick will receive a bench minorpenalty.

Kekekela
Oct 28, 2004


Thanks for this thread, its really helpful as an NBA fan that's going to be watching an assload of hockey this year. (and actually having moved to within walking distance of the Bolts arena I would be anyway)

Couple of questions:
1 - Ok, I actually thought I understood icing before reading this, but this part confuses me:
"For the purpose of this rule, the point of last contact with the puck by the team in possession shall be used to determine whether icing has occurred or not. As such, the team in possession must “gain the line” in order for the icing to be nullified. “Gaining the line” shall mean that the puck (not the player’s skate) must make contact with the center red line in order to nullify a potential icing."
Can anyone rephrase that or something? Are they saying if it goes across the goal line and the team that hit it there gets it back, they then have to come back to the center line with the puck?

2 - Boarding - What constitutes a "violent" hit? Is this just the same kind of subjective thing we get in the NFL where every time its called most of the fans are like "let them play the loving game" ?

xzzy
Mar 5, 2009

Tonight's starting lineup is
brought to you by Satan.


No, it's not saying that. If the offending team touches the puck before the opponent, icing is waved off. They don't have to clear the zone afterwards.

Boarding usually gets called when a player is a foot or more away from the boards, and he is shoved into them. These hits usually result them going into the boards head first, and it's extremely dangerous. Hitting a guy who's already in contact with the boards is generally okay (though there are some situations where it's not).

myron cope
Apr 21, 2009

This is going to end badly for the owners. Very badly.


Icing is actually pretty simple. If your team is going to "dump it in", the puck has to be at the center red line first, or it's in danger of being icing. Once that first condition is met, icing will be called if it goes across the goal line (the thin red line near the end boards where the net is) and is touched by someone from their team (except the goalie himself). If someone from your team gets to it first, icing is waved off.

I still feel like I'm explaining it with more words than I need to, but there are several quirks and exceptions to it. Like the official being able to wave it off at his discretion if he thinks it could have reasonably been played by a defender, for example.

Oh yeah, boarding. Dangerous/violent hits are basically when the guy getting hit is thrown into the boards. It doesn't always mean that, but that's a good way to look at it. They're calling a lot more "hits from behind" boards this year, even if it wasn't violent/dangerous. If the guy hitting (the "hitter") can see the other guy's numbers, and doesn't at least try to let up, it'll probably be a penaltu

myron cope fucked around with this message at Oct 23, 2011 around 02:33

Green Submarine
Oct 21, 2000

There will come soft rains...

Kekekela posted:

Couple of questions:
1 - Ok, I actually thought I understood icing before reading this, but this part confuses me:
"For the purpose of this rule, the point of last contact with the puck by the team in possession shall be used to determine whether icing has occurred or not. As such, the team in possession must “gain the line” in order for the icing to be nullified. “Gaining the line” shall mean that the puck (not the player’s skate) must make contact with the center red line in order to nullify a potential icing."
Can anyone rephrase that or something? Are they saying if it goes across the goal line and the team that hit it there gets it back, they then have to come back to the center line with the puck?

2 - Boarding - What constitutes a "violent" hit? Is this just the same kind of subjective thing we get in the NFL where every time its called most of the fans are like "let them play the loving game" ?

1. The red line in question here is the center red line. They're saying that icing is determined by where the puck is when it last touches a player, rather than where the player is. So if your skates are on the offensive side of the red line, but you reach back to the defensive side to shoot the puck into the offensive zone, then it will still be icing.

If the team that ices the puck reaches it first, that washes out the icing call, and they can play it right away in the offensive zone.

2. A great deal of judgement does go into boarding calls, both because it involves a subjective assessment of the "violence" of the hit, and because the ref can determine whether it's a 2 min., 5 min., or match penalty. That said, the bulk of boarding calls come from a few pretty well defined situations, such as:
- When a player gets hit into the boards from behind (the most common instance)
- When a player gets run into the boards in the process of a foot race for an iced puck.

The "violence" criterion is very much tied up in the "vulnerable position" criterion. Refs tend to see hits as more violent if they come in situations in which the player being hit does not have an opportunity to brace for the hit. Because of that, the penalty itself will usually be pretty clear—in contrast to something like unnecessary roughness in the NFL—although the number of minutes assessed can be controversial.

Green Submarine fucked around with this message at Oct 23, 2011 around 02:35

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Thufir
May 19, 2004

"The fucking Mayans were right."

Kekekela posted:

Thanks for this thread, its really helpful as an NBA fan that's going to be watching an assload of hockey this year. (and actually having moved to within walking distance of the Bolts arena I would be anyway)

Couple of questions:
1 - Ok, I actually thought I understood icing before reading this, but this part confuses me:
"For the purpose of this rule, the point of last contact with the puck by the team in possession shall be used to determine whether icing has occurred or not. As such, the team in possession must “gain the line” in order for the icing to be nullified. “Gaining the line” shall mean that the puck (not the player’s skate) must make contact with the center red line in order to nullify a potential icing."
Can anyone rephrase that or something? Are they saying if it goes across the goal line and the team that hit it there gets it back, they then have to come back to the center line with the puck?

2 - Boarding - What constitutes a "violent" hit? Is this just the same kind of subjective thing we get in the NFL where every time its called most of the fans are like "let them play the loving game" ?

1: The wording is a little confusing but it is pretty simple. In order for a puck being sent into the other team's end to definitely not be icing the team carrying the puck needs to cross the center red line (gain the line) before they shoot/dump the puck in. The other part of icing is that in the NHL they are barbarians and use "touch" icing so the team that committed an icing can race down and "beat" the icing if they touch it first...which sometimes ends with guys crashing into the boards and breaking femurs. Also the refs can wave off the icing if they think the defending team isn't making a decent effort to get the puck before it crosses the goal line.


2: It is subjective but a lot of times you know it when you see it. You will often see guys getting hit or crosschecked against the boards but they're pretty strong guys and don't get knocked down that easily. When someone gets knocked down (from behind) into the boards or slammed into the boards without a chance to get their arms up and catch/protect themselves there will often be a boarding call.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply
«46 »