New to Hockey?
I think there are some little things to realize about the rules and things to watch, others will add I'm sure. I don't have all the terminology right like colors of the lines. And I have a question for Face.
**** Rule aspects to know better:
*defenders can't fire the puck from their end back to the back wall to just get rid of it, 'Icing!' So you knew that.
*But they can if they are short handed on a power play.
*The center line is the determining point on that
*The puck has to cross the blue line of the defenders *first* before any players or it is 'offsides'. You knew that.
*But it is not a penalty, just a face off.
*Unlike football you can't block. Only the player with the puck can be hit etc or it is 'interference'. Perhaps you knew that.
*you can clobber the player with the puck though. New rules won't allow targeting the head, but that is about it, except 'boarding' which is knocking the player into the boards from behind.
*There is a short period of time where it is deemed that a player who had the puck but no longer has it can still be hit. 'Finishing' your hits is considered important by the players. This period of time is not really all that short.
*It's a contact sport and a lot is allowed. They use their sticks on each other a lot. You probably know what 'hooking' is already but it usually is not called unless the stick hits the hands.
*** Things I like to watch for:
Just watching who has the puck and who is trying to stop them and trying to get possession becomes mesmerizing. You can check out some other activity.
Two players stay back, like safeties in football. Once in a while if it looks like a score is possible one of them will come up, usually in the high slot. Maybe both. This is riskier than in football but so when you see it be alert. The normal thing is 3 against 5 around the goal, so scoring then is hard. During a power play it will be 3 against 4, but also 4 against 4 a lot. 4 against 4 can result in a chance for the defenders to get loose and score a 'short handed goal'. Edit: this is my terminology, you won't hear it in a game. I don't mean what it usually means when you say x against x, I mean who is up front and who is staying back.
The goalie is given a zone in 'the blue paint' in which he is supposed to operate freely. Also called 'the crease'. Sometimes an offensive player will go in the crease, and I notice the goalie is given all kinds of leeway to get rid of him. Also, any other defender can go after that guy and do things that would otherwise be a penalty - much leeway given if that guy is on the blue paint. But I also notice a lot of leeway is given if he is just really close to the blue paint. All this is pretty fun to watch.
What really are the rules for the blue paint? Officially it just says it is a zone where the goalie can not be interfered with.
Apparently originally the puck had to enter first, but now not so much?
What about a defender besides the goalie? Is he considered a goalie too? Looks like he can come in at speed and just knock the block off of some player. What is not allowed? Is it really supposed to just be the blue paint or 'near' the blue paint is good enough for how the game is really played?
Something you may want to add is penalties and powder plays, where a team loses a player for 2 minutes.
Quote: odiousgambitQuestion for Face or anybody who really knows:
What really are the rules for the blue paint? Officially it just says it is a zone where the goalie can not be interfered with.
Apparently originally the puck had to enter first, but now not so much?
What about a defender besides the goalie? Is he considered a goalie too? Looks like he can come in at speed and just knock the block off of some player. What is not allowed? Is it really supposed to just be the blue paint or 'near' the blue paint is good enough for how the game is really played?
You want the Mike Emrick or Don Cherry explanation?
"The Crease Rule" you're referring to (and the one that makes Buffalo fans clutch at their tinkle) was dumb so they nixed it. There was a point where any bit of a skater being in the blue was some sort of infraction; if not a penalty then at least a determiner for allowable goals. That is no longer the case. It is back to its reasonable definition, roughly, that it is the goalie's area, you can be in it, but goalie has the right of free travel inside it. If you're in it and your presence denies or otherwise interferes with his physical movement, that's goaltender interference. If you're just in it, then no problem. The old way meant if you had so much the tip of your toe in it, no matter if you were 5' away from the tender, it was an infraction (See: No Goal '99)
"Housekeeping", the clearing of the front of the net, is judged under the standard rules. The criteria for penalties is A) it is defined by the book as such, B) results in an advantage, and / or C) has the potential to injure. Most of the jostling in front of the net is "an attempt to use strength and power to gain an advantage over the opponent", which is fully allowed. Hooks and holds happen often during this, but if the puck is just being tossed around D to D or to the corners, then there is no "advantage gained" because the tied up player is not in play. If the puck is shot and he is prevented from acting upon it, or he attempts to escape but is held back, there's where your penalty comes into play. Slashing, cross checking, or steamrolling during the front-of-net scrum would fall under "potential to injure". Two hands on stick to push a man out of the way - Good. Two hands on stick to push a man and he falls - 2 min. Two hands on stick and strike a man - 2 min. First is using strength to gain advantage, 2nd is illegal use of stick that caused an advantage, 3rd is illegal use of stick that had potential for injury.
And re: defenders being goalies, I absolutely consider myself (and refer to myself) as "first goalie". I trust I've explained front-of-net well enough above, but as for in-net, I am free to do anything a goalie does except I may not cover the puck with my hand while in the crease. I can punch it, flick it, swat it, catch it, block it, sit on it, lay on it, kick it, stuff it down my pants, or grab it with my teeth if I want to risk the $20k I just spent on them. So long as I do not close my hand upon it, I'm good to go.
Don Cherry add-on: Look at, you got guys in front of your net, in front of your goalie. You MOVE them. Look at here, you got guys pestering the minder, he can't see, he's getting beat up...you don't win games like that. Now look at this guy. Gord Tarrington all the way from Broken Moose Soup, Manitoba. This guy is racking up numbers, BOOM there's one down. BOOM there's another. You can see here the opportunit...BOOM there he goes again. And they win 5-1. You gotta protect your goal, it's what I tell these guys, and these guys are hard guys who get it done.
I don't understand why it SOUNDS like sometimes calling icing is at the discretion of the refs, in how the play-by-play guy talks about it. Is it a timing thing, with the puck moving so fast, he's trying to scan the ice for positions? Do they have a margin of subjectivity? Something else?
Quote: FaceYou want the Mike Emrick or Don Cherry explanation?
"The Crease Rule" you're referring to (and the one that makes Buffalo fans clutch at their tinkle) was dumb so they nixed it. There was a point where any bit of a skater being in the blue was some sort of infraction; if not a penalty then at least a determiner for allowable goals. That is no longer the case. It is back to its reasonable definition, roughly, that it is the goalie's area, you can be in it, but goalie has the right of free travel inside it. If you're in it and your presence denies or otherwise interferes with his physical movement, that's goaltender interference. If you're just in it, then no problem. The old way meant if you had so much the tip of your toe in it, no matter if you were 5' away from the tender, it was an infraction (See: No Goal '99)
"Housekeeping", the clearing of the front of the net, is judged under the standard rules. The criteria for penalties is A) it is defined by the book as such, B) results in an advantage, and / or C) has the potential to injure. Most of the jostling in front of the net is "an attempt to use strength and power to gain an advantage over the opponent", which is fully allowed. Hooks and holds happen often during this, but if the puck is just being tossed around D to D or to the corners, then there is no "advantage gained" because the tied up player is not in play. If the puck is shot and he is prevented from acting upon it, or he attempts to escape but is held back, there's where your penalty comes into play. Slashing, cross checking, or steamrolling during the front-of-net scrum would fall under "potential to injure". Two hands on stick to push a man out of the way - Good. Two hands on stick to push a man and he falls - 2 min. Two hands on stick and strike a man - 2 min. First is using strength to gain advantage, 2nd is illegal use of stick that caused an advantage, 3rd is illegal use of stick that had potential for injury.
And re: defenders being goalies, I absolutely consider myself (and refer to myself) as "first goalie". I trust I've explained front-of-net well enough above, but as for in-net, I am free to do anything a goalie does except I may not cover the puck with my hand while in the crease. I can punch it, flick it, swat it, catch it, block it, sit on it, lay on it, kick it, stuff it down my pants, or grab it with my teeth if I want to risk the $20k I just spent on them. So long as I do not close my hand upon it, I'm good to go.
Don Cherry add-on: Look at, you got guys in front of your net, in front of your goalie. You MOVE them. Look at here, you got guys pestering the minder, he can't see, he's getting beat up...you don't win games like that. Now look at this guy. Gord Tarrington all the way from Broken Moose Soup, Manitoba. This guy is racking up numbers, BOOM there's one down. BOOM there's another. You can see here the opportunit...BOOM there he goes again. And they win 5-1. You gotta protect your goal, it's what I tell these guys, and these guys are hard guys who get it done.
Mike "Doc" Emerick (no relation to Doc here) is another of the "Worst things in hockey." I cannot stand his play by play. Thank goodness for CBC that we can get here near Canada!
Quote: beachbumbabsThanks, guys. Appreciate the finer points.
I don't understand why it SOUNDS like sometimes calling icing is at the discretion of the refs, in how the play-by-play guy talks about it. Is it a timing thing, with the puck moving so fast, he's trying to scan the ice for positions? Do they have a margin of subjectivity? Something else?
Icing is basically dumping the puck in from behind the red line with it passing the goal line and the opposite team touching it first. Well, that's how it was until they instituted this wussy "No Touch" garbage. Sometimes though, the linemen will wave it off if he feels the defender can get to the puck before it crosses the goal line.
Quote: IbeatyouracesIcing is basically dumping the puck in from behind the red line with it passing the goal line and the opposite team touching it first. Well, that's how it was until they instituted this wussy "No Touch" garbage. Sometimes though, the linemen will wave it off if he feels the defender can get to the puck before it crosses the goal line.
I'm sure you answered my question exactly, but I obviously need to do more googling to understand it. BBL to this.
Ok. There are 2 referees and 2 linesmen . Linesmen are responsible for determining icing and offsides.
Linesmen do have some discretion in calling icing, so they hold their arms one way to indicate potential icing, but can wave it off (a second gesture) if in their judgement the puck could have been reached before it crossed the goal line by other opposing players (than the team that sent the puck to the other end) than the goalie.
The goalie can also move towards the puck, cancelling the potential icing.
So they hold their icing pose if it IS icing, and blow the whistle, I guess, to stop play and confirm the call.
It's that 1-2 beat I didn't understand, and that explains it (assuming I read it back correctly). Thanks.
Quote: odiousgambitgotta love Don Cherry! we often get 'hockey night in Canada' [not always, for some reason] and he comes on at first intermission. Half the time I don't even know what his is talking about, but love it anyway.
I'll vote for Cherry to replace Bettman anyday!!
I really miss it when they don’t have that broadcast in the US, but that is why I suscribe to Center Ice...gotta have my HNIC!!
They have tried to get rid of Don and Ron in the past, but heard both are back next season, so life is good!
Quote: ParadigmDon Cherry & Don MacLean are the best! Hockey Night in Canada on a Saturday Night is simply the best single sport sports broadcast bar none. If you watch The pre-game Hockey Central segment followed by Coach’s Corner after the first the Saturday Headlines (used to be called the Hot Stove) after the second period, you had a complete update on the state of the NHL including trade potentials, hirings, firings, teams/players/coaches issues of interest and any current controversy in the league. The second game of the double header gave you the Saturday Scoreboard wrap up of games around the league that night and After Hours was a 30 minute interview with a player or coach participant in the 2nd game usually taking place in a make shift 3 stool TV set in the Hallway outside the lockeroom.
I really miss it when they don’t have that broadcast in the US, but that is why I suscribe to Center Ice...gotta have my HNIC!!
They have tried to get rid of Don and Ron in the past, but heard both are back next season, so life is good!
Those two are the Bobby "The Brain" Heenan and Gorilla Monsoon of the NHL. All Ron needs is a catchphrase!
Quote: Ibeatyouraces
Mike "Doc" Emerick (no relation to Doc here) is another of the "Worst things in hockey." I cannot stand his play by play. Thank goodness for CBC that we can get here near Canada!
I rather enjoy his tone and cadence, but I do agree that there's something about him that irks me. I think it's his one-liners. There's a few that are too repetitive, too try-hard. I can't think of the guy's name I really like, I just remember he was the commentator for NHL '98. As far as national coverage, he's the guy I want to see. (Found it: Jim Hughson. He to me is the voice of hockey. Love that guy)
Quote: beachbumbabsThanks, guys. Appreciate the finer points.
I don't understand why it SOUNDS like sometimes calling icing is at the discretion of the refs, in how the play-by-play guy talks about it. Is it a timing thing, with the puck moving so fast, he's trying to scan the ice for positions? Do they have a margin of subjectivity? Something else?
Too little, too late, but maybe you can fire this back up in February =P And of course, I'm gonna beat this question to death...
Subjectivity, yes, but only sometimes lol. Icing is called when the puck is fired from behind the center red line and crosses the end zone red line without being touched by the firing team. The first subjectivity happens right upon the firing. As you've likely noticed, oftentimes the firing player is obviously behind the center line. This is because this play centers on the puck, and the puck is still considered "in possession" so long as it is touching the stick. The actual point of release, the very point the puck "has been fired", is some 6 - 8.5' in front of the player who's shooting. This is the first subjectivity. Did the puck release fore or aft of the line? If the linesman believes it was icing, he raises his hand to signal it as such.
His job is now over. He is to follow the play, arm extended, signaling to the other linesman that he viewed an infraction. The onus now lies on the other linesman to verify the infraction. This linesman must look for any negating events as the puck travels, such as a deflection aft of the center line by any player. Here's your subjectivity. A dude is desperately trying to clear the puck. He's very near the center line, but the opponent is closing in on him. He fires the puck through traffic. The puck makes it through, obv, because there's an icing situation, but did it strike any of the players he was trying to punch it through? If it so much as ripples your shirt sleeve, that's not icing, but guess how easy that is to see. Think of foul balls. Some are blatantly obvious, but some are ever so damn close all the 4k in the world won't be able to see it. That deciding linesman has to decide whether it did or didn't, and that decision is likewise often subjective.
The final big one, which feels (perhaps in error) like your real question, is the ones where it seems to be called off late, or last minute. And for that, perhaps a small history lesson...
Back in my day (few years ago =p), the NHL did not follow international rules of no-touch icing. In order for icing to occur, the defending team had to be the first to touch the puck. This, as you can imagine, led to a lot of full blast foot races, between two guys trying to out muscle each other for position, straight at a steel and fiberglass wall anchored into concrete. I dunno about them, but personally with my ~20yr old pack and a half a day habit, I have no doubt I can skate in the >20mph range. I'd not be surprised if they near or hit 30mph. People were getting crushed. This isn't a check where you're hitting partitioned glass that rocks several inches. You're hitting feet or head first where the boards are solid and anchored. Remember my troubles in "Truck Resto Rant" where I disassembled my entire truck only to lose my shoulder for 2months? This is exactly why. Full speed skate and tripped at the red line. No time to do anything but turtle up and hope you're not dead.
The NHL had to act, what with all the CTE hoopla. So they made a sort of hybrid. It's no-touch icing, but you still need to try. "Try" has been left up to the linesman to decide. If a trickler or roller is coming down the rink as an icing call, and the defender could make a play on it but chooses not to, or the linesman believes he could have made it to the puck before an icing but pulled up, stopped short, or otherwise sandbagged for time to allow for the icing, he can and sort of must call it off and let play continue. Subjective? Doesn't get any more so than that.
And then of course there's calling off because it is believed the infracting team's player can and will actually beat the defender to the puck, negating the icing proper. But how close is the opposition? Close enough to beat him? Close enough to be dangerous?
Pretty much the panic clear where it's sent the full length with no one around is the only truly objective icing call. Just about every bit of the rest is completely subjective. Reckon that's why we get the big bucks =)
Quote: mcallister3200Why didn’t whoever invented this “sport” just call it what it is, “soccer-on-ice”, BORING, or put a positive spin on it, “at least it’s not golf.”
That was tried. I got an invite, couldn't go, and it never came around again. Can't remember what they called it, but I think it was 12 on 12 on a frozen soccer pitch. Or maybe it was field hockey. In any case, it was huge, and I'm still bummed I missed it.
Speaking of odd sports, I just want to mention that I invented what is now Red Bull Crashed Ice on a boarding trip in '03. I envisioned it much like downhill skiing with the jumps and the turns and high speeds, only done in a more compact fashion, similar but not exactly like the courses for the sled sports, with full hockey gear sans stick. And that's GD exactly what RBCI ended up being. And they didn't even ask me to play.
Guess I'll start working on the ice skate long jump...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdfsSqqxcf8
Quote: coilmanOk now if you are THE STAR of the league your stick work is not limited to shooting the puck like others
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdfsSqqxcf8
Needs a trigger warning.
Love the Flyers commentary "Someone needs to drop a bomb on his face. Blast him in the nose, tell him 'I don't care about your concussion, kid '"
Gimme a one day contract. $10. How has no one dropped this POS?
Those who cry about fighting, this is your fault. Bob Probert is turning in his grave.
