|
Robot Danger posted:I'm watching my third game right now, but one thing I can't get used to is trying to keep track who's on the ice. It's making it hard for me to learn anything about my team, so about how long does it take for someone new to the sport to get used to the substitution difference? It will certainly take some getting used to. However once you watch your favourite team for a while you'll start to recognize players on the ice dependant on what the situations are and how they move with the puck. Plus there's always jersey numbers.
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 04:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 1, 2024 19:46 |
|
|
Robot Danger posted:I'm watching my third game right now, but one thing I can't get used to is trying to keep track who's on the ice. It's making it hard for me to learn anything about my team, so about how long does it take for someone new to the sport to get used to the substitution difference? One really helpful thing (for me, anyway) was to learn the numbers of the guys on my team. After that, I started to learn the lines and know who usually plays with who (although this isn't hard and fast). I would say it took me about a month's worth of watching games before I had a decent grasp on who was on the ice at any given time. edit: beaten by a nano-second.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 04:27
|
|
|
Eventually you'll learn the numbers of your favorite players and be able to spot them fairly easily. Listening to the announcers helps too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 04:28
|
|
|
I tend to try to pay attention to who I notice as being dangerous when they're on the ice when I'm watching a team I'm not familiar with. I don't necessarily expect a certain forward to be on the ice at any time but I get excited if I notice a pass going to someone who I know is awesome. I don't know, I think it just takes a little time. In the end you seem to notice when your top guys are on the ice automatically (and then you get the pleasure of noticing wasted shifts where they can't get anything going, but that's the next part). e: Well that was a popular question
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 04:29
|
|
|
e: whoops
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 04:31
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Listening to the announcers helps too. Sorry, I guess I'm just a bit impatient because I've liked this a lot more than I thought I would and want to be able to talk about it with another person without sounding like a complete idiot (before the season is over).
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 04:38
|
|
|
Robot Danger posted:Yeah, this has been kind of an issue. While I don't have any issue following the puck, with the constant action going on the announcers just seem to be doing one 20 minute sentence in my brain. There are no bad questions here friend
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 04:38
|
|
|
nature6pk posted:There are no bad questions here friend why is pk subban so Disrespectful??
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 05:07
|
|
|
Robot Danger posted:I'm watching my third game right now, but one thing I can't get used to is trying to keep track who's on the ice. It's making it hard for me to learn anything about my team, so about how long does it take for someone new to the sport to get used to the substitution difference? I guess for me it kinda helps to look at pairs of players. Like if your favorite team is the Penguins, when Malkin (71) is on the ice, James Neal (18) is usually going to be with him. Crosby (87) will frequently be out with Kunitz (14). You can more easily find pairs of defensemen, since without a penalty or injury, you'll mostly see the same pairs of defensemen. A lot of the N/V threads are just us arguing about line combos. Another thing that may help is knowing when a change is going to happen. On-the-fly changes will most times happen after a dump-in. So if you see a player get to the red line and shoot it down the ice (if he shot before the red line, it could be icing, so they wouldn't be able to change at all), the other players on his line will probably head to the bench*. Depending on the situation, the guy that dumped it will immediately go off too, or he may chase it in to pressure the other team while his linemates change, then get off once they get out. Kinda like following the puck, it will get better the more you watch. Which doesn't so much help you now  Just stay with it!*This isn't a hard-and-fast rule, as dump-and-chase is a viable tactic also. It doesn't always mean a change is coming.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 05:37
|
|
|
Verviticus posted:why is pk subban so Disrespectful?? He's from Toronto
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 05:41
|
|
|
Chin up. Eventually you'll be able to recognize who's on the ice by the way they move or the way their line is playing without even seeing the numbers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 07:26
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Can somebody help me with something that has always confused me: Coincidental Penalties. My understanding so far, correct me if I'm wrong: 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? 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? 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? 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's annoying that I've watched hockey as more than a casual fan for over 5 years, but there are still some things that trip me up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 12:49
|
|
|
I've seen 3 on 3 in a lower league (in England). Both teams looked completely lost and had obviously never practised it. This is a league where coincidental penalties are served with substitution (unlike the NHL) which made the situation even rarer. It was a result of overlapping penalties in OT. I think your understanding is correct except if they're playing 4 on 4 on coincidental minor penalties they don't have to wait until the next stop in play to come back on the ice. Also a minor clarification: the penalties don't have to occur at the same time, but be assessed at the same time i.e. one team could have a delayed penalty and then the other team commits a penalty and play is stopped.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 13:02
|
|
|
toe knee hand posted:I've seen 3 on 3 in a lower league (in England). Where was this? Which tier? EIHL or lower? UK hockeygoonz reprazent! Thanks for your clarifications though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 16:16
|
|
|
EPL, Manchester Phoenix. I think I invited you to a game earlier in the season. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 16:40
|
|
|
toe knee hand posted:EPL, Manchester Phoenix. I think I invited you to a game earlier in the season. Wait, you did as well. My memory is hosed. I'll definitely come to Manchester, the Hawks are... really bad. Getting a bench minor for changing on an icing is something that shouldn't ever happen. Twice in a season is even worse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 17:00
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Topoisomerase posted: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. And to throw another wrinkle into the scenario, you have to have at least 3-non-goaltender skaters on the ice, so what happens in overtime, when a team killing a penalty (so it is 4-on-3 already) is assessed another penalty? The opposing team puts another player on the ice, making it a 5-on-3. Rare, yes, but always worth a second look.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 18:08
|
|
|
Haha that's brilliant Thanks everyone
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 20:07
|
|
|
Kwik posted:And to throw another wrinkle into the scenario, you have to have at least 3-non-goaltender skaters on the ice, The rule was once magnificently exploited by Roger Neilson. When his team was killing a 5-on-3 at the end of the game, he'd keep on throwing out new players to stop the clock and get a faceoff. After all, they faced no actual loss, since they couldn't go down to fewer than 3 skaters and it was the end of the game. The rules were very quickly changed to allow the referee to assess a penalty shot instead of a penalty should similar situations arise in the future.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Roger Neilson is also responsible for this rule: once when he pulled the goalie for a 6th skater, he told his goalie to lay his stick down flat across the goal line. Now if you do that and the puck hits it, it's an automatic goal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 21:01
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
ElwoodCuse posted:Roger Neilson is also responsible for this rule: once when he pulled the goalie for a 6th skater, he told his goalie to lay his stick down flat across the goal line. Now if you do that and the puck hits it, it's an automatic goal. another one: he would put a defenseman out instead of a goalie for a penalty shot and just have the d man attack the shooter, a strategy he found much more effective than having a goalie in net. now you can't do that anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 22:24
|
|
|
thehustler posted:
Really, the easiest way to see a 3 on 3 would be in overtime with coincidental minors. OT is 4 on 4 standard, so a quick penalty to both teams would result in a 3 on 3. If one of the teams takes another penalty after that, the other team actually gets to put another skater on the ice in order to give them the man advantage while still leaving 3 skaters on the other side.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 22:24
|
|
|
This is brilliant. I loving love hockey.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 22:52
|
|
|
Any other things he did to get around the rules?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 23:01
|
|
|
a false posted:another one: he would put a defenseman out instead of a goalie for a penalty shot and just have the d man attack the shooter, a strategy he found much more effective than having a goalie in net. now you can't do that anymore. Oh god. They should so allow this for shootouts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 23:02
|
|
|
It takes a real sick genius to figure out pulling your goalie on a penalty shot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 01:37
|
|
|
So after the last page or two of Neilson-chat I decided to read up on him more and, huh, I had no idea he was the "white-flag" waver, too. That guy was a character and a half!
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 03:45
|
|
Duke Chin posted:So after the last page or two of Neilson-chat I decided to read up on him more and, huh, I had no idea he was the "white-flag" waver, too. That guy was a character and a half! There's a statue of that moment outside Vancouver's arena.  Even video analysis was his thing before everyone started doing it.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 05:58
|
|
|
3-on-3 happened at the beginning of overtime in the Hawks-stars game tonight, I believe. Funny, that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 10:22
|
|
|
I'm not a hockey newbie but I do have a question about a call last night (this play here) and figure this would be a good place to ask. In the Oilers/Kings game last night Nugent-Hopkins scored late in the game. The goal was called back since Gagner had interfered with Quick. I don't dispute that it was interference and the call is good. What I am confused about is that they first awarded the goal (the ref gives the goal sign), and then called it back afterwards after the officials got together and talked about it. Is this a new rule? I remember lots of cases where plays exactly like this happen and the refs are always like "welp sorry we can't do anything about it". Or is this something that has always been the case but we just don't see often?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 19:14
|
|
|
I guess if another official spotted it, they can change the call after conference. I don't think it's exactly spelled out in the rules. Especially if a linesman spotted it, because they can't stop play for that kind of thing. They can only tell the referees at the next stoppage, which in this case would be the goal. One thing they're not allowed to do is go to video review for goalie interference. Aphrodite fucked around with this message at 20:53 on Jan 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 20:48
|
|
|
Sexy Randal posted:I'm not a hockey newbie but I do have a question about a call last night (this play here) and figure this would be a good place to ask. the tsn panel were lauding the ref conference as the right thing to do and something that isn't done often enough but said that the call itself was wrong as gagner made every effort to get out of the way but was pushed into quick and was literally stuck in quick's pads.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 21:47
|
|
|
all hockey novices shall watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0E78zK4bzM
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 02:47
|
|
|
After watching the Wings' first 4 games, it really seemed like this most recent game was a big improvement. Aside from the power-play scoring (which seemed like an obvious + today, but the 1st period power play opportunities were lackluster), from my observation it looked like the defense played a heck of a lot better (that 3rd goal from the Wild was a super fluke, and one of the others came from a 5-3), the offense benefitted from having Bertuzzi & Helm back in rotation, and Howard seemed to play better than the past few games. The team looked a bit more physical when going after the puck, but the string of penalties that seemed to stretch until the early 3rd were brutal to watch. I have no idea if any of what I just typed out is correct; can anyone tell me why I am right or wrong? I'm still really new at picking up lineups/matchups/line changes (I had no goddamn idea that players were on the ice <1:00 at a time until I read it in the OP and actually paid attention  ) and identifying players/numbers, so even if I'm right, I don't know what it was that I was picking up that made me correct.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 08:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 1, 2024 19:46 |
|
|
Sexy Randal posted:Is this a new rule? I remember lots of cases where plays exactly like this happen and the refs are always like "welp sorry we can't do anything about it". Or is this something that has always been the case but we just don't see often? Just to turn what Aphrodite said into a single sentence: In cases of goaltender interference, the rule is not that the call cannot be changed, but that the referees cannot appeal to video review.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 14:18
|
|