|
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" ?
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2011 03:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 01:51 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Ah cool, yeah I definitely see that happening but didn't realize there was a name for it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2011 04:31
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Hockey 102 - NBA refugees welcome
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2011 02:56
|
|
|
What counts as a "scoring chance" when they're showing team stats?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2011 02:30
|
|
|
Do skaters wear some kind of padding on the sides of the upper body? Because otherwise, jesus christ, the way the lay down in front of shooters to block shots seems like it would be some super painful/rib breaking poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2011 06:00
|
|
|
drat..I swear when Hedman lays down it looks like he's trying to get one right in the ribs half the time. I guess being seven feet tall makes it tougher to gauge or something.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2011 07:22
|
|
|
If anyone saw the overtime goal in the Colorado/Bolts game tonight...is it likely that the scorer was actually aiming at Garon's leg to bounce that one in, or is more like just put it in a general area and hope something good happens? I'm leaning towards the later but I guess just kind of wondering about how good guys are at that sort of thing at the highest levels.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2011 06:08
|
|
|
CobwebMustardseed posted:This thread is wonderful and I wish I had noticed it earlier. Yeah, good question. As a Tampa resident and Lightning fan, I can tell you that most of the local chatter about the team is some variation of "why do we suck so badly on the power play?".
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2012 23:53
|
|
|
myron cope posted:I'm unhappy with the OP. There are so many words. It's so...verbose. How can I make it better? quote:ADD MORE STUFF  In all seriousness though I thought it was very awesome and helpful. I could see maybe moving the things under the "advanced" heading down into the second post or something along those lines, but there's not really anything in there that I'd recommend removing altogether.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2012 03:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 01:51 |
|
|
Wow, those whiteboard articles are awesome
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2012 14:01
|
|