|
xzzy posted:Other than that, yeah, travelling in basketball. The only hard rule seems to be if the puck hits a player as they leave the ice, it'll get called every single time. You'll sometimes see teams shoot the puck at the opponent bench during changes to force a penalty. I'm not sure about the NHL rule, but if the puck hits a player that is very close to and obviously in the act of going to the bench and said player does not attempt to play it, under USA Hockey rules that should not be called Too Many Men. However if a player that just stepped on the ice plays the puck before the other guy is totally off the ice, that is definitely a penalty. I played NCAA D1 women's too!  edit: Found the relevant NHL rule, it is the same. quote:If in the course of a substitution either the player(s) entering the play or the player(s) retiring is struck by the puck accidentally, the play will not be stopped and no penalty will be called. Topoisomerase fucked around with this message at 05:53 on Sep 23, 2011 |
#
¿
Sep 23, 2011 05:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 11:42 |
|
|
FateoMcSkippy posted:I've seen a penalty called for that too. The rule I quoted was from the NHL rules site. I don't actually watch that many NHL games anymore (because I'm on the west coast and my favorite team is an east coast team and their games are usually over by the time I get home from campus) but I never remember it being called unless whichever dude was attempting to play the puck. I'm a USA Hockey referee though and have played for 25ish years.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2011 16:24
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
From that area of the ice a good shooter can certainly look up and notice the goalie's positioning and try to get a read on weight distribution to figure out how to best exploit any weaknesses, and a wrister from there should be pretty accurate from a pro player. But what you figure is just as likely, honestly..
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2011 07:55
|
|
|
Judging the relative ability of hockey players is more of a situational and role thing, as others have alluded to. Stats are all but useless as they are currently kept and calculated, and being able to really assess player talent in a competitive game (where talent levels are relatively close between teams and players) requires a more than superficial knowledge of the strategies and mechanics of the game as a whole. The thing is - each decision made by a player requires a combination of training, skill and intuition that IMO (maybe I'm just being arrogant here ) is unmatched in any other sport. The overarching strategy is to create odd-man advantage situations in your team's favor, on all parts of the ice. For example, how a player moves when not in possession of the puck is one of the most telling things you can assess about that player's talent level. And that's something you can't really come up with a great quantitative stat for.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2012 22:45
|
|
|
Dangerllama posted:I would totally be that guy that argues that shooting the puck over the glass is not a penalty because there is no glass there. And then you'd be that guy getting a two minute penalty for arguing bullshit with the ref. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2012 16:19
|
|
|
Dangerllama posted:The son of one of my co-workers was trying to work his way up to the NHL (as a ref), but wasn't that into the idea of having to pay his dues for ten years in Mooseknuckle, Ontario just to get to the show. He is one of the most even keel people I've ever met. He just doesn't get excited. Yeah, I'm still new enough at the gig that I have to kind of set boundaries for my reaction when I make a questionable call and somebody argues with it. In beer league it's generally "get in the box and shut up" because it's beer league and I'm not paid enough to deal with some whiny middle-aged tripod. In youth leagues I'll usually hear them out. I imagine when I have enough ice presence and am confident enough to start working at higher levels, I'll better be able to be automatic about it and not let it affect me quite so much when I have to make a judgment call like that!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2012 19:25
|
|
|
nature6pk posted:Kids are whiney bitches who have their loser parents who'll fight you after the game for calling little Johnny for checking from behind when he obliterates some poor kid into the end boards. You know, people always say this, but this hasn't been my experience at all in the youth games I've officiated. What I've found is that most of the kids pretty much accept whatever you say, most of the coaches will be pretty reasonable, and I've literally never had a parent come up to me and say anything untoward - in fact, the only time I've had parents come up has been to try to kiss rear end or something (I don't know, they're always exceptionally nice to me). The beer league adults on the other hand....the lower the level, the bigger of douches they are. But this is a derail, none of those tripods will be making it anywhere near the NHL (even if they think their rink's EEE championship is the same as the Stanley Cup) and that's what this thread is kinda about isn't it?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2012 03:56
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:Earlier this year, a bunch of Midget level players assaulted a referee after a game for a call they didn't like. Of course there's assholes in every group of people. Refs in my association have had to file police reports against (usually adult league) players who have stalked or threatened them. Actually, the one who's had to do this the most times is one of the few other women who officiates, so I feel like it's something I probably have to look forward to once I am more established.  I'm just saying that in my experience, the adults are worse than the youth.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2012 04:21
|
|
|
Insertnamehere31 posted:If a player is in the penalty box at the end of an overtime, can they participate in a shootout? As others said, yes unless they are serving a 10 minute (or game, obviously) misconduct penalty. Minor and major penalties are designed to penalize the team as a whole despite it being an individual player who serves them. If players in the box for a minor or major couldn't participate in a shoot-out, it would be sort of unfair to players who are serving penalties for other players or the bench. Misconduct penalties penalize only the player in a direct sense. That's kind of why. Topoisomerase fucked around with this message at 22:29 on Jun 19, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2012 22:26
|
|
|
As far as knowing when a change is going to happen, it might also help to think about what situations in a game would be good for line changes. You rarely see a team changing when they are in their defensive zone for instance, and if they're there for longer than 20-30 seconds they will most likely change as soon as they get the opportunity (i.e. they clear the puck or get a faceoff) because a) working to get the puck out of the defensive zone is TIRING and b) if the other team was controlling the play in their zone long enough it means something's "off" that shift anyway and it's probably best to change. A normal shift length is probably between 35-55 seconds in the NHL, depending on the player and game situation. If there's a lot of back and forth in the neutral zone you might see guys stay out on the longer end of that. Also as others have said sending one guy in to forecheck when the puck is deep in the other team's zone is a good time to change lines if guys are getting tired or the other team changed.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2013 08:20
|
|
|
thehustler posted:Coincidental penalties are penalties that happen at the "same time". When coincidental penalties happen, both teams lose a man and play 4 on 4, don't they? But that isn't a powerplay, it's still even strength, so if one team scores, the penalised player from the other side doesn't come back on, because then the scoring team would be at an immediate disadvantage. Instead, both players have to wait 2 minutes + next stoppage in play to come back on. So it's still 4 on 4 even after a goal is scored? This is the case in the NHL, yes. A player only returns to the ice from the penalty box on a goal scored by the other team if a) their team is shorthanded and b) they are serving a minor penalty. However, I do believe in the NHL they don't have to wait for a play stoppage for the penalty to expire due to the lack of substitution. quote:In some other leagues, I think read that they stay 5 on 5, but both players have to still sit out the 2 min + next stoppage. But not in the NHL. Has it always been this way? The NHL originally was no substitution (4 on 4) then changed to 5 on 5 in the mid 80's, then back to 4 on 4 in the early-to-mid 90's IIRC. Most all amateur leagues/IIHF allow for substitution to 5 on 5. quote:When coincidental major penalties happen, both players go off for 5 minutes + next stoppage in play, but they can be substituted for by other players from their teams, right? Correct. quote:Finally, unrelated, but do 3 on 3s ever happen due to penalties? I've never seen one. Seen a 4 on 3, never a 3 on 3. It could happen if the penalties were staggered. In your 4 on 3 scenario, if the team that was on the power play gets a non-coincident penalty, it would then be 3 on 3. One other note, the no substitution for coincidental minors rule only applies if the teams were at even strength to begin with. If it were say 5 on 4 and the teams get coincidental minors, they would allow for substitution to keep the game at 5 on 4. Minor, but important to understanding numbers. Topoisomerase fucked around with this message at 18:08 on Jan 24, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2013 17:57
|
|
|
Another scenario to think about: In the case that there were coincident minors on A1 and B1 at say, 8:00 on the clock (to make it 4 on 4), and then team A gets another minor penalty at 8:20 on A2 (to bring it down to 3 on 4), then team B scores a goal at 8:30, A2's penalty would expire rather than A1's, even though A1 has been in longer.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
Lawnie posted:Random note about empty net situations: if team A's net is empty, and team B has a player on a breakaway, and a player from team A takes a penalty against the player on team B that would normally result in a penalty shot, a goal is awarded to team B. Actually the criteria for a goal being awarded with the goaltender pulled are slightly different from the criteria for a penalty shot awarded with the goaltender in. http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26553 are the infractions that would result in a goal awarded with an empty net. http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26552 are the penalty shot situations (with some subjective criteria added in as well that I will not go into unless asked).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2013 21:20
|
|
|
Robo-Pope posted:It's probably safe to assume this has never happened given (1) the relative rarity of non-matching majors and (2) the inability of shorthanded teams to defend aggressively enough to attempt anything that could earn them a major, but Player C's clock doesn't start until 13:00 when Player A gets free. Until then, he's essentially sitting in the penalty box waiting to serve his penalty. Since he's not serving the penalty yet, he's not freed when the goal is scored. What do you mean by coincidental major and minor that puts a team down more than 2 men? Could you clarify that statement for me and maybe I can help with how the 'order' would work?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2013 16:07
|
|
|
myron cope posted:Also, is linesman like referee training, or are there basically two tracks with not any (or much) crossover We train in both in USA Hockey. Generally when you're starting out you'll line for awhile before you get your first game in the orange, and you'll be able to line at a higher level than you can ref. For example I can ref (in a 3 man system) up to Peewee A level, but can line Midgets. Guys who ref the Midget games here are usually linesmen for college and juniors. And so on. And then there's beer league where we'll run a 2 official system wherein both officials are refs. IMO that's a fun system because it's a hybrid one and super intuitive.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2013 18:04
|
|
|
Hockles posted:That's how high school was, and how my beer league is now. And I swear I have seen an official that ref'd my HS games (10 years ago) work the line Lake Erie Monsters games. Oh yeah, obviously as you get more experienced you'll generally be able to do higher levels and stuff. Mostly it comes with game experience and time.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2013 23:09
|
|
|
Friendly Factory posted:The referee clinic needs to be taken annually or you're disqualified from refereeing, due to the near constant rule changes. Level 3s and up are not given multiple choice test, but rather SRD (state referee's decision) instead. The questions are the same (with an additional 20 after the prior 40), but you need to know the rules to answer. It's easier than you'd think. A lot of this seems fairly similar for USA Hockey. I'm a fairly new - 2 seasons now - level 2 official in northern California. My availability (I'm a veterinary student about to enter final year clinics) seriously limits the experience that I can get but I've got about 100 games as ref or line at various levels from beer league to mites inhouse to Bantam Tier II under my belt at this point. If people want a thread, I can contribute as well.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2013 23:39
|
|
|
Also just because I'm not sure if I saw it mentioned, the home team gets the last line change before a puck drop, as long as they give the visitors a chance to change first (this prevents a home team from changing quickly and blocking the visiting team from changing at all). A ref will point to the visitors bench first to indicate it's time for them to change, and then if they don't within 5 seconds, will put his hand up to indicate to the home team to change, and put his arm down after 8 seconds. That signals to the linesman to blow the whistle and get everyone set up for the faceoff and drop within 5 seconds. This doesn't really happen in the NHL but sometimes at lower levels if a team is taking their time changing or otherwise causing a delay I'll warn them once, then toss the center the next time they delay a faceoff. The next infraction is a delay of game penalty. I usually tend to warn people once at the low levels about things like squaring up and putting their sticks down in the right place and in the right order and stuff before tossing centers as well.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2013 21:47
|
|
|
Robo-Pope posted:In beer league, I've seen refs simply drop the puck with only one center lined up if the opposing team is taking too long to set up after a warning. I assume this isn't something refs are allowed to do on competitive levels and is just easier for them given that it's beer league? This is completely legal under USA Hockey rules, at any level. After the whistle the teams have 5 seconds to get set. If one center is taking his sweet time for whatever reason, as long as everyone is onsides the official can drop the puck at the end of that 5 seconds and it's a legally conducted faceoff. I assume the NHL is the same. McDragon posted:But poo poo, I don't get the appeal of reffing at all. No matter how well you do it, there's always going to be people calling for your head. Guess it probably takes a strong will. If you are at all insecure or uncertain you'll get eaten alive, at any level from in-house mites to wobbly beer leaguers to juniors to the NHL. I find that there are a subset of people who are attracted to it because they like the powertrip which is lovely IMO. People are still dicks to you sometimes regardless, but it's a lot less so if you take just a little bit of time to explain the controversial calls to coaches and players and don't automatically blow them off when they have legit concerns and voice them appropriately. Honestly (and this will sound hella sappy) I just love the game and like to stay involved with it, but don't have the money to play as much as I'd like or the time to dedicate to coaching, so officiating is a good way to accomplish that. 
Topoisomerase fucked around with this message at 04:16 on May 8, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 8, 2013 04:02
|
|
|
inferis posted:What are people talking about when they refer to someone as a good or bad skater? Is it about speed or maneuvering or what exactly, because everyone who stays standing seems like a good enough skater at least right? Same principles as when you're talking about someone who's quick in any sport, like a RB or WR or whoever in soccer, really. Straightaway speed is important in some situations but a great skater uses all 4 skate edges effectively and efficiently and can do so on a dime to change direction, stop or move laterally while also maintaining awareness of the play. Even at the NHL level, where most players are very good to excellent skaters, you can see some differences in turn radius, transition speed and skating efficiency that can make a big difference in the passing game and when going for a loose puck.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2013 08:47
|
|
|
Dangerllama posted:It's also just the ability to always be on your feet and physically in the right position to make a play, no matter what. When you watch(ed) guys Scott Niedermayer or Nicklas Lidstrom play, it's amazing how effortless they make their transitions, stops-and-starts, forward stride, etc. look. If it wasn't so mezmerizing, it'd actually be really boring. Ah yeah, that's kind of what I meant by efficiency, I totally agree!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2013 04:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 11:42 |
|
|
windshipper posted:This, basically. It's true of most goal tending in general. You come out in order to be able to stop the ball/puck shorter so it has less of a chance of going wider - reducing the ability for it to go out of your reach. If they pass to someone behind you or to the side of you, you're hosed at that point. If it's a straight up 1-1 scenario though, it's all but mandatory. It also allows you to help dictate how the engagement goes to a certain extent, rather than purely reacting. This still holds true in hockey - young goalies are definitely taught to play the angles. The smaller the goalie is, the more important this is.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2014 23:33
|
|