|
Ah ok, I think my original understanding of icing was pretty much correct (thanks mid-90s video games!) but I got tripped up on the wording of that paragraph. Also didn't realize that trapezoid rule which suddenly makes the delay of game penalties from tonight make sense (I thought they were slow getting back on the ice or something, hurr)quote:When a player gets hit into the boards from behind (the most common instance) Also there were some play stoppages when there were a ton of guys on top of the goalie that I didn't get...the puck was still moving despite having briefly stopped, is this just the ref giving a quick whistle thinking the pucks getting covered up or whatever? Thanks for your patience goons 
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2011 03:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 20:39 |
|
|
Refs are instructed to blow the whistle when they lose sight of the puck, which is why those situations end up with a stoppage a lot of the time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2011 03:54
|
|
|
Kekekela posted:It seems like this happens a lot (with no penalty called) when they're down around the net, but the guys aren't covering a lot of ground to make the hit...I'm guessing it just doesn't get called if the guy doesn't have a head of steam built up? (therefore not being "violent") If a player turns his back at the last second, there won't be a penalty. Also, if a player is already more or less against the boards, and the checking player is just pinning him, rubbing him out, or giving him a little two-handed shove in the back, that usually won't draw a call. To get pinned with boarding, you have to go hard into someone who's 2-3 feet off the boards. That's the really dangerous play that will send a player head first into the dasher. As for the stoppages, the ref will blow the whistle whenever he loses sight of the puck. A few times a game, usually, he'll be too quick and blow dead a live play, but the "loses sight of the puck" rule of thumb does a pretty good job all things considered. It applies consistently, at least. You might also see the play blown dead if there's a penalty, even if the puck is loose.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2011 03:59
|
|
|
quote:Also, if a player is already more or less against the boards, and the checking player is just pinning him, rubbing him out, or giving him a little two-handed shove in the back, that usually won't draw a call. The "losing sight of the puck" thing makes a lot of stuff make sense also (although I see myself screaming a whole lot of "I CAN SEE IT FROM HERE WHAT THE gently caress IS WRONG WITH YOU" in the future)
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2011 04:02
|
|
|
Kekekela posted:The "losing sight of the puck" thing makes a lot of stuff make sense also (although I see myself screaming a whole lot of "I CAN SEE IT FROM HERE WHAT THE gently caress IS WRONG WITH YOU" in the future) Yeah, that happens and it especially sucks when you can tell the puck is slowly rolling towards going into the goal and then...*tweet*
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2011 04:04
|
|
|
Ok, I think this is it... When "dumping in", aren't you risking icing? Also, isn't this basically giving up a turnover (not sure if this term is used in hockey but hopefully you know what I'm saying) unless the one guy chasing the puck happens to come up with it? Are shifts really only like 45-50 seconds long on average? I swear it doesn't seem like they switch up that much but I guess I'm just not very attentive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2011 04:11
|
|
|
Even worse, if it goes to video review for any reason, there's actually rules that stay play is stopped when the ref "intends" to blow the whistle. That is, the instant he begins moving his hand to his mouth.. that's when the play is dead, and not actually when the whistle sounds.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2011 04:12
|
|
|
Kekekela posted:Ok, I think this is it... No, as soon as the puck touches the center red line, icing is not possible. 45 seconds is the ideal shift. They usually go a little bit longer than that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2011 04:13
|
|
|
Kekekela posted:Ok, I think this is it... Usually teams will carry to center red before dumping and thus avoid icing. Sometimes teams will dump the puck in so that they can get a change. In those circumstances they are more or less giving up possession but they will have a couple players forechecking trying to make the other team cough up the puck. Teams will also dump the puck as a means to enter the zone offensively. In those circumstances they will usually either shoot it hard around the boards which gives their opposite side winger a decent chance of getting the puck, or they will dump it into the opposite corner where it is easy for them to trap the opposing defenseman and maybe force a turnover. Keep in mind that a lot of times the forwards entering the zone are going at full speed so they can race to the puck pretty well. Yeah, shifts are usually 45-50 seconds, NHL.com has shift length data for every player if you're interested.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2011 04:18
|
|
|
Thanks guys, I should now be able to wow and amaze my friends with my hockey knowledge (because they seriously don't know wtf even by my standards)!
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2011 04:23
|
|
|
Thufir posted:Keep in mind that a lot of times the forwards entering the zone are going at full speed so they can race to the puck pretty well. This is the key. A lot of times you'll see defensemen up at the blue line to prevent attackers from just skating in with the puck, so then it gets dumped in and the defensemen have to turn around and start skating to go for it while the forwards just keep cruising in, knowing they were dumping it in all along. Then a lot of times even if the defense gets there first, someone coming in on the forecheck will come in and hit them. This leads to announcers saying "he heard footsteps", where the defenseman going back knows a hit is coming and rushes the play, sometimes making a dumb decision with the puck and turning it over. And yeah, "turnover", "giveaway" and "takeaway" are all used in hockey.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2011 04:29
|
|
|
Ah cool, yeah I definitely see that happening but didn't realize there was a name for it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2011 04:31
|
|
|
Kekekela posted:Ah cool, yeah I definitely see that happening but didn't realize there was a name for it. "Dump and chase." Very original. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2011 06:21
|
|
|
Kekekela posted:Thanks guys, I should now be able to wow and amaze my friends with my hockey knowledge (because they seriously don't know wtf even by my standards)! Wait until a goal gets waved off because the referee "intended to blow the whistle" because he lost sight of the puck.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2011 07:06
|
|
|
Topoisomerase posted:"Dump and chase." Very original.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2011 10:26
|
|
|
Good example of a super fast player doing a chip and charge on an elite defenseman in a game 7 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQBvLY30mXY
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2011 10:45
|
|
|
Hirez posted:Good example of a super fast player doing a chip and charge on an elite defenseman in a game 7 I knew what that was as soon as you posted it. That was my favourite goal of that years playoffs, it's just so ridiculous. Gonchar just makes it look like he's trying to slow him down.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2011 14:56
|
|
|
Hirez posted:Good example of a super fast player doing a chip and charge on an elite defenseman in a game 7 You can see it live several times a night if you watch the Blackhawks.. Frolik tries it just about every time he's on the rush.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2011 14:57
|
|
|
marioinblack posted:There's also the variation called the "Chip and Charge" when a forward (in most cases) possesses the puck, flicks it down the ice after crossing the center red line, and then tries to maneuver past the defender in an effort to get to the puck first. The advantage of this play is the defender can't knock the forward who just chipped it in over or else there's an interference call. A lot of times you'll see the defender try and gently redirect the forward so he can push him off his lane. Refs usually allow a little contact, but as long as the forward still has momentum going forward, there won't be any calls. Saw this a lot at the Bolts game tonight once I started watching for it, especially in the 1st period. Moore in particular seemed to do it the majority of the times he had an opportunity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2011 03:19
|
|
|
Kekekela posted:Saw this a lot at the Bolts game tonight once I started watching for it, especially in the 1st period. Moore in particular seemed to do it the majority of the times he had an opportunity. It's a mainstay of many of the smaller players in the league. You get a 190 pound featherweight trying to enter the offensive zone and facing off against a 250 pound d-man, he's gonna chip it every time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2011 04:23
|
|
|
Sorry if this is in the OP and I'm just missing it, but looking at the standings it appears that its 2 points for a win, and 1 point for an overtime game...I'm assuming that winning overtime must confer some advantage, so what would that be?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2011 01:00
|
|
|
Kekekela posted:Sorry if this is in the OP and I'm just missing it, but looking at the standings it appears that its 2 points for a win, and 1 point for an overtime game...I'm assuming that winning overtime must confer some advantage, so what would that be? You get a second point for winning in OT, in addition to the 1 point for getting to OT.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2011 01:05
|
|
|
xzzy posted:You get a second point for winning in OT, in addition to the 1 point for getting to OT. Ah, so I guess on the standings I'm looking at the 'OT' column is just OT losses, right? http://www.nhl.com/ice/standings.htm#?navid=nav-stn-main
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2011 01:08
|
|
|
Kekekela posted:Sorry if this is in the OP and I'm just missing it, but looking at the standings it appears that its 2 points for a win, and 1 point for an overtime game...I'm assuming that winning overtime must confer some advantage, so what would that be? Yes, overtime wins give two points the same as regulation wins, with the confusing addition that shootout overtime wins don't count as wins for the purposes of tiebreakers in the standings. Kekekela posted:Ah, so I guess on the standings I'm looking at the 'OT' column is just OT losses, right? http://www.nhl.com/ice/standings.htm#?navid=nav-stn-main Yes and "ROW" is regulation + OT (non-shootout) wins, the number of wins counted towards a tiebreaker. Thufir fucked around with this message at 01:12 on Nov 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2011 01:10
|
|
|
Thufir posted:Yes, overtime wins give two points the same as regulation wins, with the confusing addition that shootout overtime wins don't count as wins for the purposes of tiebreakers in the standings.  OK, so looking at Washington: W 9 L 3 O 0 ROW 8 Pts 18 This means they won 8 games in either regulation or non-shootout OT, and 1 game in a shootout...and have zero OT losses?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2011 01:17
|
|
|
Kekekela posted:
Yep. And Pittsburgh is 9-3-3 with a ROW of 6 so they won 6 in regulation or OT, 3 in shootout, and lost 3 in overtime or shootout. And lost 3 in regulation. e: and here are the standings / tiebreak procedures quote:- Division leaders are seeded 1, 2, and 3 in Conference standings. If two or more clubs are tied in points during the regular season, the standing of the clubs is determined in the following order:
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2011 01:23
|
|
|
Kekekela posted:This means they won 8 games in either regulation or non-shootout OT, and 1 game in a shootout...and have zero OT losses? Yeah. Don't worry about ROW until like March, it only matters for tiebreakers when it comes to the playoffs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2011 01:23
|
|
|
Kekekela posted:
It's easier than when it was Wins + Losses + OT Losses + Ties. Figuring out a team's standing was like loving calculus. Completely unrelated but noting it here for posterity (just happened): Matt Duchene should never, ever, ever be allowed to take a slap-shot. waffle enthusiast fucked around with this message at 04:28 on Nov 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2011 04:04
|
|
|
It was so much simpler when it was 2 points for a regulation or OT win and split points for a tie. But the shootout is popular so whatever!
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2011 04:16
|
|
|
Gio posted:It was so much simpler when it was 2 points for a regulation or OT win and split points for a tie. But the shootout is popular so whatever! Simpler, but it tended to make for a lot more boring hockey, especially when it was still 5-on-5 in the extra session. Teams found it a lot safer and smarter to sit back and guarantee themselves a point instead of taking risks going for 2 when they didn't already have 1 essentially banked. I like the "charity point", I just don't like shootouts. Maybe because my Flyers are absolutely terrible at them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2011 20:21
|
|
|
Yes, the shootouts are pretty terrible, but I'll grant they do a good job resolving a game quickly. I don't really have a good idea beyond what they're already doing though. Crazy ideas, yes. Good ideas, not so much.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2011 20:27
|
|
|
Hi hockey goons. I'm one of your hoops refugees. Multi-sport posters may remember me for rooting for such assholes as The New York Yankees and The LA Lakers. My entire qualification for being a hockey fan is winning my fantasy hockey league a few years back despite never watching a game or knowing anything about hockey, thus infuriating the Canadian that ran the league. I haven't picked a hockey team yet, but I bought Gamecenter and NHL '12 and have been getting into the swing of things. And I watched Caps-Preds tonight and it was pretty rad. Since I don't have a team yet, what teams have good announcers/broadcasting teams? I use sports for background noise and I like having a good announcer on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2011 06:40
|
|
|
Dr. Kyle Farnsworth posted:Hi hockey goons. I'm one of your hoops refugees. Multi-sport posters may remember me for rooting for such assholes as The New York Yankees and The LA Lakers. My entire qualification for being a hockey fan is winning my fantasy hockey league a few years back despite never watching a game or knowing anything about hockey, thus infuriating the Canadian that ran the league. I haven't picked a hockey team yet, but I bought Gamecenter and NHL '12 and have been getting into the swing of things. And I watched Caps-Preds tonight and it was pretty rad. New York Rangers: Great play-by-play guy in Sam Rosen. Joe Michelletti is the commentator and he's just ok. Dallas Stars: I forget the name of their PBP guy but he's good and they have Darrel Rheaugh aka Razor as their color guy and he is the best color guy in the league and completely awesome. Carolina Hurricanes: Their PBP guy is John Forslund and he's great. Their color guy is not very good though. San Jose: Randy Hahn and Drew Remenda. They have great chemistry and can be pretty funny sometimes. Sometimes they get a little on the homer side and that can get annoying if you care about the team the Sharks are playing. And uhh yeah I'm having trouble thinking of any other broadcasts which I think almost anyone would like. Well there are these four teams, though listen to these broadcasts only if you want to laugh (though Buffalo's can be amusing and a good broadcast because RJ calls games well): Buffalo Sabres: RJ has a great voice for play by play and does a great job capturing the excitement of a good game. A lot of people hate him though for his ridiculously over dramatic calls of Buffalo's goals. Colorado Avalanche: Their announcers get ridiculously excited over even minor good plays. It's very amusing. They sound like a couple of people who are seeing hockey for the first time. Pittsburgh Penguins: They are utterly terrible and homer as gently caress but they are so bad that they can sometimes be funny because of the constant stream of stupid rear end poo poo they say. If you want to hear a color guy who sounds like he's constantly high as gently caress and mentally disabled then listen to these guys. Boston Bruins: Also homer as gently caress like the Pens announcers. Jack Edwards is completely insane and shamefully homerish. He once compared a Bruins win to a revolutionary war battle victory. Seriously. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjMDOxefHck And that's all I got. Ginette Reno fucked around with this message at 07:21 on Nov 16, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2011 07:17
|
|
|
Lucky for you we have that argument about twice a month in N/V. It's easier to get the horrible out of the way first: Pittsburgh Detroit Anaheim Then go into the "disputed" territory (some people love them, some hate them): Buffalo NY Rangers Capitals And then finally the "good" ones: Dallas San Jose ...LA Kings? The rest I'm either not familiar with or just forgetting. edit:  edit2: Do yourself a favor if you're picking a team based solely on announcers: Stay away from Dallas. Their announcers are good but the team not so much. And they may be moving? myron cope fucked around with this message at 07:21 on Nov 16, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2011 07:18
|
|
|
Dr. Kyle Farnsworth posted:
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2011 07:18
|
|
|
Since the op says to ask ANY question no matter HOW stupid... I'm helping to plan a friend's bachelor party for next year. We want to go up to Pittsburgh, and we want to go to the NHL draft. How does one go about getting tickets to such a splendid occasion?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2011 20:17
|
|
|
You can't get them yet from anyone, so I'd advise signing up for emails from the NHL and maybe the Penguins too. They'll let you know the deal about public tickets. Minnesota hosted last year and made their ticket announcement in late April.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2011 20:31
|
|
|
In Minnesota, draft tickets were free to boot. Just be advised, attending the draft is boring as all living gently caress. It's interesting for the first few picks, but then it's just more of the same, only with people you've probably never heard of, in between looooooong pauses. TV enhances it because you can get some background. It was more fun watching the rowdy, drunken Winnipeggers than it was watching the actual event. Now, if you get really into that kind of stuff and have a draft pool or some other deep investment in the draft, then disregard this, but if you're like me and thought "hey, this might be fun" then think twice, because it's really not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2011 23:18
|
|
|
There is not enough liquor on the planet to make watching the draft in person entertaining unless you're there with someone waiting to get drafted (or getting drafted yourself I guess).
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2011 02:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 20:39 |
|
|
Hockey 102 - NBA refugees welcome
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2011 02:56
|
|