Hockey 101

[Guyute]

I think this will help draw out some questions, and to keep them kinda in one spot.

So, ask away. Don't be shy. You want to learn, here's your chance. :)

[Jeff O Rocks]

They call boarding when the players back is actually to the defender, right?? Kind of a "blind side" hit??

Thanks Guyute AND Shell!! :D

[Shell]

and I'd like to know about rule 46 which is called "butt ending" ;)

Here is the official Boarding rule:

Rule 44 Boarding

(a) A minor or major penalty, at the discretion of the Referee, based upon the degree of violence of the impact with the boards, shall be imposed on any player who checks an opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to be thrown violently in the boards.

(NOTE) Any unnecessary contact with a player playing the puck on an obvious "icing" or "off-side" play which results in that player being knocked into the boards is "boarding" and must be penalized as such. In other instances where there is no contact with the boards, it should be treated as "charging."

(b) When a major penalty is imposed under this Rule for a foul resulting in an injury to the face or head of an opponent, a game misconduct shall be imposed.

(c) Any player who incurs a total of two (2) game misconducts for Boarding under Rule 44 (b), in either Regular Season or Playoffs, shall be suspended automatically for the next game of his Team. For each subsequent game misconduct penalty the automatic suspension shall be increased by one game.

(d) When a major penalty is imposed under this Rule, an automatic fine of one hundred dollars ($100) shall be imposed.

[Shell]

at the discretion of the Referee

the phrase which sends spasms down my spine......

[Guyute]

boarding is totally discretionary... as most things. yes, most times they're "blind side" hits. most times it's when the player who is boarded is about a foot off the boards... enough so that he's not far enough away to be safe from crashing into it... but not close enough that the hit mostly checks him into the glass. The most dangerous hit is when they're just a little bit away from the boards. Get checked, and go down in a heap, right into the bottom part of the board (which is like concrete when you hit it). That's most likely to draw a boarding call.

of course, they can (and do) call it whenever they think there's an intent to injure.

[Turbulence]

Here's a question for ye...

Ok, a Deke is a move that an offensive player performs to fake out the goalie, right? (or defender?) What exactly is a deke though? Thru the legs, etc....???

:beatup:

[Kat]

Here's a question for ye...

Ok, a Deke is a move that an offensive player performs to fake out the goalie, right? (or defender?) What exactly is a deke though? Thru the legs, etc....???

:beatup:

My understanding is that a deke is a move that any player with the puck performs to get the puck around the player that is in their way. In the goalie's case, an example would be drawing the goalie out or to the side and then putting (or "deking") the puck around him.

-Kat

[tommy]

Okay, I'm no expert either, so I have a question that I've been thinking about for a while.

On a delayed call, if a team about to go on the PP accidentally knocks the puck in their own net, is it a goal? Who gets credit? Does the PP then ensue?

[Turbulence]

It's a goal...play is stopped only when the team incurring the penalty touches the puck, a goal is scored, or the puck goes out of play. Whether or not the pp still goes on I don't know...
I believe Detroit was in this situation once last year...they drew a delayed penalty but knocked it into their own net. Can't remember what game it was...
Edited: The goal would then be credited to the last opposing player to have touched the puck. That's how goalies have inadvertantly scored goals before... :beatup:

Thanks for the info, Kat. :spin:

[HubbyHatesHockey]

This happened in a game I was watching this past year. I don't *think* the one I saw was Detroit, maybe the Sharks. Anyway, delayed penalty, the goalie was pulled, one guy made a pass back towards the blue line, but his teammate wasn't ready for it and it sailed all the way into their own goal! As Turbulence mentioned, the goal was credited to the last player on the opposite team to have touched it. What a way to increase your stats! "Who, me? I scored?!"

[drwFischerFan2]

I remember a game at the beginning of the season featuring Anaheim and Detroit, a delayed penalty was called against the Ducks and Oates sent it into his own net. So that might be the game you are thinking about.

[Lady J]

Yeah, Guy and Shell , I have a question : What is that little black thing called that they hit with sticks? ;) :evil:

Actually, I had been wondering for awhile ( and I think this has come up before, so forgive me if I'm repeating a question ) : Who would be our goalie if Weekes and DesRochers couldn't play?

[Stormbringer]

Actually, I had been wondering for awhile ( and I think this has come up before, so forgive me if I'm repeating a question ) : Who would be our goalie if Weekes and DesRochers couldn't play?

Well, if Kapanen was still here, it would supposedly be him. But now that he's not here...hmmmm...could it possibly be Tripp? :crazy: Afterall, he is a former goaltender, and the NHL rules state that a replacement goaltender doesn't necessarily have to be on the team, but just in the building/near the ice during a game. I just had a thought...it could also be Bubba (http://www.letsgocanes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=696), but as I said, he would have to be in the RBC during a game.

[Kat]

Actually, it was originally Malik, then Kapanen, for last year.

Technically, the team could play 6-on-5 for the rest of the game. Realistically (according to a question asked of Kaiton in Hurricanes U), they would probably forfeit.

-Kat

[Shell]

can't go the other way though.. I found this earlier today looking for something else:

1931-32 - Though there is no record of a team attempting to play with two goaltenders on the ice, a rule was instituted which stated that each team was allowed only one goaltender on the ice at one time.

Can you imagine playing 2 goalies and having 4 skaters? LOL

[Jeff O Rocks]

can't go the other way though.. I found this earlier today looking for something else:

1931-32 - Though there is no record of a team attempting to play with two goaltenders on the ice, a rule was instituted which stated that each team was allowed only one goaltender on the ice at one time.

Can you imagine playing 2 goalies and having 4 skaters? LOL

Surely no one could score on you then!! :crazy: Heck of a way to protect a lead!!

[NCIrish]

Here's a question for ye...

Ok, a Deke is a move that an offensive player performs to fake out the goalie, right? (or defender?) What exactly is a deke though? Thru the legs, etc....???

:beatup:
(question added to answer due to large gap between them - nbr)

An abbreviated term for 'decoyed". Any movement made against an opposing player of any position to cause that player to move in a totally unexpected manner as to completly avoid a defender is a DEKE. A Deke move can be made against wingers, forwards or goalies. You are attempting to decoy them into thinking you are going to do one thing and then do the opposite. Hope this makes sense.
NCIrish
"Go Canes!"

[folgersnyourcup]

I've been wondering something for a little bit. Sorry to bring up baad memories but go back to game 3 of the finals and the icing that led to the game being tied and for all intents and purposes the Wings' Stanley cup winning goal.

Check out center ice with Battaglia and I can't remember who. He is absolutely manhandled as he is trying to get to the puck... He very well may have gotten to the puck to avoid the icing if not for that.

In a situation such as that, shouldn't at the very least icing be waved off? I thought this belonged here because it involves the icing rule. I have seen icing waved off for many different reasons and it appears to be up to the ref's discretion. Upon watching that play the first thing that comes to mind is that there could have even been a penalty out of that but surely icing should have been waved off....right?

:Still grumbling that if not for the subsequent goal, even if the Canes had still lost the finals, ESPN and sporting news wouldn't be able to say things like that the Red Wings had an easy glide, or that the Canes flamed out in the finals, or that the Canes/Wings finals ended a string of closely contested finals:

Grumble grumble grumble.

[mr. chubby]

Question: How is the "Game Winning Goal Determined"? (and dont say the goal that wins the game!)

Is it the last goal scored that is unanswered by the other team? Or is it the goal that put the team in the lead to stay?

Thanks!

[e2ipiand1]

The easiest way to explain it is by example.

Say that the Canes beat the Pens 7-2. The game winning goal would be the third goal scored by the Canes. It doesn't matter whether the Pens had the lead at any point in the game or not.

[mr. chubby]

thanks for that, e2ipiand1!!

[MoBigRed]

In a situation such as that, shouldn't at the very least icing be waved off? I thought this belonged here because it involves the icing rule. I have seen icing waved off for many different reasons and it appears to be up to the ref's discretion. Upon watching that play the first thing that comes to mind is that there could have even been a penalty out of that but surely icing should have been waved off....right?


Remember the posts on the old board about 'ref gives such-and-such team victory over such-and-such'? Nobody was given a win here, but i'd say the same principle applies.

Unfortunately that's the way of the NHL - inconsistent officiating. Being Canes fans, we notice things more when they happen to the Canes, but it happens all over the NHL. All we can do is shake our heads, let the refs know they suck, and carry on.

But for what it's worth, i agree with your assessment completely.

[tommy]

I've got a question about all the arbitration hearings going on. So if an arbiter awards a player a contract that the team still doesn't like, do they HAVE to pay him/sign him? I doubt that, it doesn't seem logical, but I'm not sure. Or does that just like make him a free agent or something?

[Shell]

Once the arbitrator makes the award, the team has 48 hours to agree and take it or say no. This off-season is only the 2nd time in NHL history that a team walked away from the deal. The team that says no retains the right to match another team's offer, if that offer is less than 80 per cent of the arbitration award. If the offer is above the 80 per cent figure, the player is an unrestricted free agent with no compensation due to the rejecting team by the signing team.

Hope that was clear

[Shell]

Figured I'd post Waiver Draft info in light of the Legace conversation in case not everyone is clear on what/when it is...

Waivers/Waiver Draft
The NHL Waiver Draft is held approximately three to seven days prior to the start of the regular season. NHL clubs are allowed to protect 18 players and two goaltenders from this Draft.

Teams cannot select an unprotected player from another team in their own Division during the first round of the Waiver Draft.

When one team selects a player from another team, the selecting team must take a player off their protected list. The team that lost the player has the choice of claiming either the newly-unprotected player (who they must place on their protected list or he can be claimed again) or the selected player's waiver price. If the team that lost a player chooses to accept the waiver price, that team can then protect another player. A team cannot lose more than three players or one goaltender.

Player eligibility for the Waiver Draft is based on total games played, the number of years the player has been a professional, and the age of the player when he signed his first NHL contract.

For the purposes of regular season waivers and the Waiver Draft, the five-year exemption for an 18-year-old skater and four-year exemption for a 19-year-old skater are both reduced to three years commencing the first season that the 18 or 19-year-old playes in 11 games or more. The next two seasons, regardless of whether the skater plays any games in either season, shall count as the second and third years toward satisfying the exemption.

For purposes of regular season waivers and the Waiver Draft, the six-year exemption for an 18-year-old goaltender and five-year exemption for a 19-year-old goalternder are both reduced to four years commencing the first season that the 18 or 19-year-old plays in 11 NHL games or more. The next three seasons, regardless of whether the goalie plays any games in any season, shall count as the next three years toward satisfying the exemption.

The first season in which a player who is age 20 or older plays in one or more professional games shall constitute the first year for calculating the number of years he is exempt from waivers.

The rights granted to assign a player who is otherwise required to clear waivers to a minor league Club expire for any player, who, after clearing Waiver Draft or regular season waivers; is not sent to a minor league club, or is recalled from a minor league Club (except on emergency recall) and; remains on an League roster for 30 days or plays 10 League games.

[Jeff O Rocks]

Ok...hockey knowledgeable folks...explain to me please about this Waiver Draft.. ?????? :roll: If someone drafts some of our players, even if they are under contract, what happens?? Do we have to match the offer or is the team free to take them??

Thanks..

[nccanes]

What's a "chop check"?

[AbNormal27]

In 26 years of playing, I have NEVER heard that term. I am going to guess that it's when one player deliberately makes an attempt to chop the legs out from another player with a check rather than with his stick. Again, this is just a guess because that's not a term I've heard.

Aaryn

PS: <-------- 500 posts!

[Guyute]

never heard that term in all my life either. I would also assume it's akin to a chop block in football.


mona- you figure out all you needed to about the waiver draft last week?

[nccanes]

I swear I heard Chuck use that term more than once over the last couple of games I listened to.

Maybe I'm misremembering (I am getting old) ;) , but I know it wasn't forecheck, back check, poke check.... What other types are there? Maybe I used the wrong term altogether.

Whatever one he used, he used it to describe something Ronnie did on Friday night - which was why I thought it was time I understood what he meant.

[Shell]

The only one I know besides what you mentioned is the good ole body check?

[nccanes]

The only one I know besides what you mentioned is the good ole body check?

Yeah, forgot that one. But that wasn't it either.

Now that the games are going to be televised, I won't listen to Chuck until the first non-TV game. By then I'll forget to even listen for it, :laugh:.

[SouthernHockeyChick]

You forgot cross-check. Not that this is helping....it's just fun. :beatup:

[IcyRed]

I'm not sure if I've heard Chuck say it, but I've hear commentators in other sports refer to a 'cup check' referring to testing somones ummmm how shall I say, intestinal fortitude?

Icy

[Jeff O Rocks]

mona- you figure out all you needed to about the waiver draft last week?

Actually no......who do they decide who is available in this draft and who is protected??

Thanks...I am still learning!! :D

[Guyute]

that's just a team/coach/GM/owner decision. you just protect the people you want to keep the most.... and if you have to leave someone unprotected, that you want, you hope they're not snatched up.

remember that a team may only lose 3 players in the waiver draft... once they do that, they're closed.

[RIO]

Une questione...

I saw a picture of the Whalers from way back when (date unknown), and I was struck by the site of long pants on the players. Ron Francis in long green pants. Could someone please explain these to me? I've never seen these before. They looked really motion restrictive. :-\

As Craig Kilborn says, "What up?" :D

[AbNormal27]

Those are called Cooper-Alls. The Whalers and the Flyers both wore them for one season. They were a trend that didn`t catch on.

Aaryn

PS: Did I slur?

[RIO]

Those are called Cooper-Alls. The Whalers and the Flyers both wore them for one season. They were a trend that didn`t catch on.

Aaryn

PS: Did I slur?

AH! Thanks, Aaryn. That clears it right up. I saw the picture and muttered "Who thought THOSE were a good idea?" :roll: Why the heck did they try to introduce those anyway? What possible plus side could they possibly have had over their old uniform pants?

And yes, you slurred horribly. :p

[MeanGene]

Those are called Cooper-Alls. The Whalers and the Flyers both wore them for one season. They were a trend that didn`t catch on.

Aaryn

PS: Did I slur?

Like the Unitards that NC State used to wear. :eek:

[RIO]

Like the Unitards that NC State used to wear. :eek:

I'm afraid to even ask about that :eek2: Did you look cute in yours? ;) :evil:

[Mookie]

One of the facets I don't understand yet is when "they waive off icing". Who waives it off and what determines if it can be waived or not?

[Shell]

The only time they should waive it off, is if they determine that 1) the defense could have touched it 2) the goaltender comes out to play it or 3) it touches a skate or stick on its way down.. however, they seem to be waiving off wayyyy more icings this season so far. The problem with the rule, as with all the rules, is the term "referee's discretion"

[Mookie]

Thanks, Shell.

[Shell]

sure.. many people here know much more than I though so don't commit it to memory until you get any corrections or addendums lol

[Guyute]

no need, hit all 3 points. you've learned much grasshoppa. ;)

although, rarely will a goalie come out to play it unless it's been waived off. if the puck is heading at the net though, he's kind of forced to play it.

[MeanGene]

Icing:

Icing is waved off if it deflects off of, or is touched by a defending player after the puck leaves the stick or if it s touched by an attacking player who is over center ice before the defending team can touch it.

It is also supposed to be waived off if a defender can play it, but just lets it go, or if a golatender makes any move to play the puck even if he does not touch it.

[4DFan]

Listening to the games I've been hearing about fanned shots or passes. Is this essentially a whiff or a topped shot? Is there a reason one would want to do it?

[Shell]

yep, a fan is a whiff.. we do it A LOT.. but never on purpose :beatup:

[tommy]

or if a golatender makes any move to play the puck even if he does not touch it.

I've noticed that the refs are fairly lenient with this rule. I've seen lots of goalies come out to play it and then kinda shrink back into the goal, and the icing was still called. It's somewhat subjective (as is pretty much every other call, these days.)

[4DFan]

Okay, I listen to Chuck Kaiton enough, I think I understand the effect of shortening / expanding the Neutral Zone. What was the point of moving the goal line to 13ft, and did it have it's desired effect? What's likely to happen if they move it back to 10 ft?

[Guyute]

the goal line was moved up, to create more skating room behind the net. the purpose, oddly enough... was to increase scoring. it allowed forward to setup behind the net, which was much tougher before.

I say oddly enough... because now they're talking about moving it back... why? to increase scoring of course. ;)

[AbNormal27]

Okay, I listen to Chuck Kaiton enough, I think I understand the effect of shortening / expanding the Neutral Zone. What was the point of moving the goal line to 13ft, and did it have it's desired effect? What's likely to happen if they move it back to 10 ft?

There is also a concept developed by former NHLer Bobby Smith that the NHL is testing in the AHL, whereby they are expanding the blue lines and eliminating the red line. I didn't hear Chuck's comments, but I suspect he was making reference to this test too.

Aaryn

[4DFan]

Chuck talked at length about the two-line pass and size of the neutral zone during the Kaiton's Corner for the Vancouver game. I was just wondering if anyone had thoughts on what the adverse effects of moving the goal line back to 10ft would be.

http://www.hurricanes.com/images/audio/kaitonscorner/kc/121403_high.wma

[MeanGene]

This thread has been dead for two months, so I will add something to it. Here is some trivia for you.

The Hurricanes are playing Washington :D in this scenario.

The Caps have the puck in our zone on a delayed penalty. Kolzig leaves the net on the delayed penalty. The puck is shot from the point and hits a cap player in the back of the helmet, and the puck goes flying high in the air. Kevyn Adams knocks the puck out of the air very hard and it heads down the ice and into the empty net. Does the goal count, or does in not?

Hmmmm..........

[MeanGene]

This thread has been dead for two months, so I will add something to it. Here is some trivia for you.

The Hurricanes are playing Washington :D in this scenario.

The Caps have the puck in our zone on a delayed penalty. Kolzig leaves the net on the delayed penalty. The puck is shot from the point and hits a cap player in the back of the helmet, and the puck goes flying high in the air. Kevyn Adams knocks the puck out of the air very hard and it heads down the ice and into the empty net. Does the goal count, or does in not?

Hmmmm..........

[VandyCane]

I believe the answer is no goal. The second Kevyn Adams comes in contact with the puck, the play is whistled dead, therefore no goal.

[VandyCane]

I believe the answer is no goal. The second Kevyn Adams comes in contact with the puck, the play is whistled dead, therefore no goal.

[nccanes]

IThe second Kevyn Adams....

I had to re-read MG's question because I thought I must have missed that it was some sort of trick question - why else would there be TWO Kevyn Adamses on the ice. ;)

[nccanes]

IThe second Kevyn Adams....

I had to re-read MG's question because I thought I must have missed that it was some sort of trick question - why else would there be TWO Kevyn Adamses on the ice. ;)

[jhardman]

IThe second Kevyn Adams....

I had to re-read MG's question because I thought I must have missed that it was some sort of trick question - why else would there be TWO Kevyn Adamses on the ice. ;)

Hopefully there will be next year in Jason Doig's eyes after Kevyn beats the crap out of him....

[jhardman]

IThe second Kevyn Adams....

I had to re-read MG's question because I thought I must have missed that it was some sort of trick question - why else would there be TWO Kevyn Adamses on the ice. ;)

Hopefully there will be next year in Jason Doig's eyes after Kevyn beats the crap out of him....

[VandyCane]

LOL :crazy: I wouldn't mind two Kevyn Adams' on the penalty kill. :D

[VandyCane]

LOL :crazy: I wouldn't mind two Kevyn Adams' on the penalty kill. :D

[AbNormal27]

Doesn't count. Play would be blown dead when Adams gained control of the puck.

Aaryn

[AbNormal27]

Doesn't count. Play would be blown dead when Adams gained control of the puck.

Aaryn

[nccanes]

Okay - what if it bounced of Kevyn Adams helmet and went in the net? Does that count since he didn't really have "control"?

[nccanes]

Okay - what if it bounced of Kevyn Adams helmet and went in the net? Does that count since he didn't really have "control"?

[talkingcanes]

with our luck, if it hit Kevyn in the head, it would knock him out :beatup:

[talkingcanes]

with our luck, if it hit Kevyn in the head, it would knock him out :beatup:

[MeanGene]

Here is why I thougt of this. I was rewatching the game from theh other night and Washington had a delayed penalty. Our guys touched the puck twice with no whistle. There was no control, but we did touch it. If a player bats the puck out of the air, does that count as having control? It was have to be hit very hard to make it the other end and would probably have to happen near the beginning of a period. It could happen though. I think the rule says that the offending team has to gain control of the puck before the whistle is blown. I think that the goal would count.

I look everywhere for the delayed penalty rule, but was unable to find it. The only thing I came was where there were like two or three people in the box at the same time, and when their penalties would start.

[MeanGene]

Here is why I thougt of this. I was rewatching the game from theh other night and Washington had a delayed penalty. Our guys touched the puck twice with no whistle. There was no control, but we did touch it. If a player bats the puck out of the air, does that count as having control? It was have to be hit very hard to make it the other end and would probably have to happen near the beginning of a period. It could happen though. I think the rule says that the offending team has to gain control of the puck before the whistle is blown. I think that the goal would count.

I look everywhere for the delayed penalty rule, but was unable to find it. The only thing I came was where there were like two or three people in the box at the same time, and when their penalties would start.

[Shell]

I don't think it would count.. however, the team about to get the PP could score on themselves once the goalie left.

In 1979, Billy Smith of the New York Islanders became the first NHL goalie to score a goal when a player on the Colorado Rockies put the puck into his own net during a delayed penalty call -- no goalie to stop the puck. Smith had been the last Islander to touch the puck, so under NHL rules he was credited with the goal.

I did find this though (from 2000 when Van Hellemond became the new director of officiating):
Recently, NHL officials asked the referees to consider another long-standing situation -- the delayed-penalty call. The memo reminded officials that the offending team must gain full possession of the puck before whistling the play and calling the delayed penalty. It may not sound like much, but it shows the scrutiny with which the league is looking at the game. The quick whistle on the delayed-penalty call had become the norm, with a simple touch of the puck by the guilty team constituting a play stoppage. Now, with an emphasis on puck possession by the soon-to-be-shorthanded team, strategy might become part of the equation. Puck possession, transition from defense to offense and even set plays devised for the skater joining the play from the bench all become possibilities and points of consideration.

[Shell]

I don't think it would count.. however, the team about to get the PP could score on themselves once the goalie left.

In 1979, Billy Smith of the New York Islanders became the first NHL goalie to score a goal when a player on the Colorado Rockies put the puck into his own net during a delayed penalty call -- no goalie to stop the puck. Smith had been the last Islander to touch the puck, so under NHL rules he was credited with the goal.

I did find this though (from 2000 when Van Hellemond became the new director of officiating):
Recently, NHL officials asked the referees to consider another long-standing situation -- the delayed-penalty call. The memo reminded officials that the offending team must gain full possession of the puck before whistling the play and calling the delayed penalty. It may not sound like much, but it shows the scrutiny with which the league is looking at the game. The quick whistle on the delayed-penalty call had become the norm, with a simple touch of the puck by the guilty team constituting a play stoppage. Now, with an emphasis on puck possession by the soon-to-be-shorthanded team, strategy might become part of the equation. Puck possession, transition from defense to offense and even set plays devised for the skater joining the play from the bench all become possibilities and points of consideration.

[Canesluver]

This seems like the best place to put my question:

In the discussion from the General Managers meeting re:rule change suggestions, what does "tag up offsides" mean?

[AbNormal27]

An individual player can re-enter the offensive zone at a time rather than the whole line. Once a player has made himself onside again, he may re-enter the play. The way it is now, the whole line must be onside before re-entering the zone. I hope that helps.

Aaryn

[Shell]

sometimes it is easier for me to understand with players attached..

Say Ronnie goes into the zone offside. Now, they would blow the whistle as soon as the offside happens. With Tag-Up Offsides, it would be a delayed whistle and Ronnie could circle out of the zone and clear and no offside call would be made (assuming no one on our team touched the puck).. least that's my understanding.. make sense?

[Canesluver]

Thanks, you guys!
Makes sense to me!! :smoke:

[nccanes]

So a PK becomes a little tougher, eh?

[CANESFREAKinDET]

Ok guys I have a question and this has to do with the Canes uniform. I know i know I should know them well enough by now but the patches on the shoulder always have confused me. They look like flags kinda, and I never have understood the squarey-motif with the red on the outside and black on the inside. Do the shoulder patches have to do with the Triangle? That's like the only explanation I might have, unless they're just for decoration...sorry if its a silly question. lol :crazy:

[Turbulence]

The red square with the black square inside of it, when shown on a flagpole at the beach, signifies that a tropical storm is coming. Put two in a row...http://www.radiomargaritaville.com/images/hurricane%20flag.gif and it signifies a hurricane warning.

When the team management was asked why the logo had one flag instead of two, which sould have been correct, they said something like 'it looks better with one.'

[AbNormal27]

When the team management was asked why the logo had one flag instead of two, which sould have been correct, they said something like 'it looks better with one.'

:roll: Ladies and Gentlemen, the logic of Good Old Peter, GOP for short.

Aaryn

[CANESFREAKinDET]

OOOO :D Thank you, Turbulence! You cleared it all up for me! Many many thanks! That is actually really cool..I'm glad I know this now...I can explain it to my best friend, who is a Wing Nut, but was also kinda looking perplexed at it. lol yay!

And wow, wonderful Peter :beatup: :roll: So our shoulders indicate we are but mere "Tropical Storm" fans. I hate to agree with the guy, but the singular flag DOES look better. Two WOULD have been logical, but I 'm so used to this way it would look strange the other way. :) But thanks again...I'm still kinda hockey deficient in some areas...so I might be popping back here more often with more inquiries hehee...

[nccanes]

Personally, I think it does look better with one.

Given that it's the alternate logo - and seeing some of those from the other teams, I can live with 1 flag.

[CANESFREAKinDET]

Couldn't agree more...some pukey colors and symbols that other teams got shafted with lol. :beatup:

By the way nccanes, I love your avatar. Kevyn right? It's cuttee.... :)

[AbNormal27]

Couldn't agree more...some pukey colors and symbols that other teams got shafted with lol. :beatup:

**cough** Nashville's 3rd jersey **cough**. Can you imagine what kind of monstrosity we may have ended up with as our jersey if the stories of GOP naming the team the Ice Hogs were true and he actually had? (insert barfing emoticon here).

Aaryn

[CANESFREAKinDET]

UGH...lol what about the teddy bear third design for Boston? LOL....I wonder what some of the jersey designers were smoking when they gave these out... :beatup: *barf*

[Jeff O Rocks]

What determines the difference between hooking and tripping?? I have a hard time telling them apart.. although in Atlanta I called a hooking call before the ref did.. I was proud of myself.. the Thrasher fan beside of me was not so happy for me!! :D

[AbNormal27]

Usually if a player has his stick at or above the waist on his opponent, and hauls the other player down, it's hooking. Below the waist, tripping.

Aaryn

[Jeff O Rocks]

Thanks Aaryn...hooking is a pretty inconsistent call... I see that a lot and it doesn't seem to be called as much..

[lvscolencanes]

Got a question, sorry if its dingy....

With the new injuries to the Flyers players, what is the rule on call ups during the playoffs? Do you just have a solid roster that you can not add to during the playoff?

[talkingcanes]

Got a question, sorry if its dingy....

With the new injuries to the Flyers players, what is the rule on call ups during the playoffs? Do you just have a solid roster that you can not add to during the playoff?

is Desjardines even on their roster? I think he's been on IR since he got hurt. he hasn't played since then, right? I don't know what happens if a rostered player gets hurt. I don't recall a team calling up any players during the playoffs, but I could be way wrong on that.

[nccanes]

I think they can expand their rosters right after the trade deadline - don't know if there's a limit. Remember we had Tselios and a number of others who never saw the light of the RBC. I think they even had some name for them because they were the "scout team" - it was the "Black Aces" or something. Or maybe I'm crazy....

[e2ipiand1]

Once the regular season is over, a team may call up anybody they have under contract without limit. Of course, if their team in is their league's playoffs, your not going to call them up.

This is considered an extra benefit of making the playoffs. Your minor leaguers get extra organized practice, usually as a scrimmage team during practices.

[tommy]

In fact, Brind'Amour's first ever goal was in the playoffs when he got called up from the minors one year and scored for the Blues.

[Turbulence]

Teams usually call up a host of backups...just in case. They always call up a goalie...
If both of your goalies are hurt in a game, rather than putting your playoff hopes in the hands of a skater playing in goal, you can put that third goalie in and have at least a chance...

[puck_it]

ive got an in at nhl.com so any unanswerable questions ill see if i can find the correct response to.

[puck_it]

ive got an in at nhl.com so any unanswerable questions ill see if i can find the correct response to.

[puck_it]

ive got an in at nhl.com so any unanswerable questions ill see if i can find the correct response to.

[Turbulence]

ive got an in at nhl.com so any unanswerable questions ill see if i can find the correct response to.

Are you Gary Bettman? :p

[Turbulence]

ive got an in at nhl.com so any unanswerable questions ill see if i can find the correct response to.

Are you Gary Bettman? :p

[Turbulence]

ive got an in at nhl.com so any unanswerable questions ill see if i can find the correct response to.

Are you Gary Bettman? :p

[Canesluver]

Can't be. I don't think Bettman has opposable thumbs--- makes typing harder! :p

[Canesluver]

Can't be. I don't think Bettman has opposable thumbs--- makes typing harder! :p

[Canesluver]

Can't be. I don't think Bettman has opposable thumbs--- makes typing harder! :p

[puck_it]

if i were gary bettman id kick my own ass. no ive got a friend over there.

[puck_it]

if i were gary bettman id kick my own ass. no ive got a friend over there.

[puck_it]

if i were gary bettman id kick my own ass. no ive got a friend over there.

[folgersnyourcup]

Okay puck_it, ask them when either game 7 of the '99 cup finals will began or better yet when game 6 of the '99 finals will be continued. Thanks!

[folgersnyourcup]

Okay puck_it, ask them when either game 7 of the '99 cup finals will began or better yet when game 6 of the '99 finals will be continued. Thanks!

[folgersnyourcup]

Okay puck_it, ask them when either game 7 of the '99 cup finals will began or better yet when game 6 of the '99 finals will be continued. Thanks!

[puck_it]

Okay puck_it, ask them when either game 7 of the '99 cup finals will began or better yet when game 6 of the '99 finals will be continued. Thanks!

not a Brett Hull fan i take it?

[puck_it]

Okay puck_it, ask them when either game 7 of the '99 cup finals will began or better yet when game 6 of the '99 finals will be continued. Thanks!

not a Brett Hull fan i take it?

[puck_it]

Okay puck_it, ask them when either game 7 of the '99 cup finals will began or better yet when game 6 of the '99 finals will be continued. Thanks!

not a Brett Hull fan i take it?

[CanesFan]

My question is about Line Changes...

When during the game can a team make a line change and when do they normally like to make those changes?

Also, do teams normally change the whole offensive or defensive line rather than individual players...if so, why?

[CanesFan]

My question is about Line Changes...

When during the game can a team make a line change and when do they normally like to make those changes?

Also, do teams normally change the whole offensive or defensive line rather than individual players...if so, why?

[CanesFan]

My question is about Line Changes...

When during the game can a team make a line change and when do they normally like to make those changes?

Also, do teams normally change the whole offensive or defensive line rather than individual players...if so, why?

[CanesFan]

My question is about Line Changes...

When during the game can a team make a line change and when do they normally like to make those changes?

Also, do teams normally change the whole offensive or defensive line rather than individual players...if so, why?

[Guyute]

When during the game can a team make a line change and when do they normally like to make those changes?
any time they want pretty much. with the exception of if your team has just iced the puck. You are not allowed a change immediately following an icing call.

as for when they like to make them... most teams prefer making changes at stoppages.. but, there aren't normally stoppages every 45-60 seconds (roughly avg shift time)... or, at least I hope there's not stoppages every 45-60 seconds. if there are, I'm looking for a different game to tune to. ;)


Also, do teams normally change the whole offensive or defensive line rather than individual players...if so, why?
when possible, lines are usually kept together (and defensive pairings). sometimes if say Adams is pushing the puck deep, the other 2 forwards will go for a change, and Kevyn will go once he gets back.
they don't Have to happen at the same time. But in order to keep linemates together, they try and change at the same time.

Hockey is largely dependent on chemistry. If I'm Staal and I'm used to playing with Stillman and Cole... I don't want to get stuck on the ice 20 seconds after Stillman and Cole changed. Then I'm a little less fresh for the next shift. You don't want your line being juggled during a game because one of you is taking longer shifts, and not ready to go at some point because you're too tired.

and yes, lines are juggled during the game at some point by most teams.

[Guyute]

When during the game can a team make a line change and when do they normally like to make those changes?
any time they want pretty much. with the exception of if your team has just iced the puck. You are not allowed a change immediately following an icing call.

as for when they like to make them... most teams prefer making changes at stoppages.. but, there aren't normally stoppages every 45-60 seconds (roughly avg shift time)... or, at least I hope there's not stoppages every 45-60 seconds. if there are, I'm looking for a different game to tune to. ;)


Also, do teams normally change the whole offensive or defensive line rather than individual players...if so, why?
when possible, lines are usually kept together (and defensive pairings). sometimes if say Adams is pushing the puck deep, the other 2 forwards will go for a change, and Kevyn will go once he gets back.
they don't Have to happen at the same time. But in order to keep linemates together, they try and change at the same time.

Hockey is largely dependent on chemistry. If I'm Staal and I'm used to playing with Stillman and Cole... I don't want to get stuck on the ice 20 seconds after Stillman and Cole changed. Then I'm a little less fresh for the next shift. You don't want your line being juggled during a game because one of you is taking longer shifts, and not ready to go at some point because you're too tired.

and yes, lines are juggled during the game at some point by most teams.

[Guyute]

When during the game can a team make a line change and when do they normally like to make those changes?
any time they want pretty much. with the exception of if your team has just iced the puck. You are not allowed a change immediately following an icing call.

as for when they like to make them... most teams prefer making changes at stoppages.. but, there aren't normally stoppages every 45-60 seconds (roughly avg shift time)... or, at least I hope there's not stoppages every 45-60 seconds. if there are, I'm looking for a different game to tune to. ;)


Also, do teams normally change the whole offensive or defensive line rather than individual players...if so, why?
when possible, lines are usually kept together (and defensive pairings). sometimes if say Adams is pushing the puck deep, the other 2 forwards will go for a change, and Kevyn will go once he gets back.
they don't Have to happen at the same time. But in order to keep linemates together, they try and change at the same time.

Hockey is largely dependent on chemistry. If I'm Staal and I'm used to playing with Stillman and Cole... I don't want to get stuck on the ice 20 seconds after Stillman and Cole changed. Then I'm a little less fresh for the next shift. You don't want your line being juggled during a game because one of you is taking longer shifts, and not ready to go at some point because you're too tired.

and yes, lines are juggled during the game at some point by most teams.

[Guyute]

When during the game can a team make a line change and when do they normally like to make those changes?
any time they want pretty much. with the exception of if your team has just iced the puck. You are not allowed a change immediately following an icing call.

as for when they like to make them... most teams prefer making changes at stoppages.. but, there aren't normally stoppages every 45-60 seconds (roughly avg shift time)... or, at least I hope there's not stoppages every 45-60 seconds. if there are, I'm looking for a different game to tune to. ;)


Also, do teams normally change the whole offensive or defensive line rather than individual players...if so, why?
when possible, lines are usually kept together (and defensive pairings). sometimes if say Adams is pushing the puck deep, the other 2 forwards will go for a change, and Kevyn will go once he gets back.
they don't Have to happen at the same time. But in order to keep linemates together, they try and change at the same time.

Hockey is largely dependent on chemistry. If I'm Staal and I'm used to playing with Stillman and Cole... I don't want to get stuck on the ice 20 seconds after Stillman and Cole changed. Then I'm a little less fresh for the next shift. You don't want your line being juggled during a game because one of you is taking longer shifts, and not ready to go at some point because you're too tired.

and yes, lines are juggled during the game at some point by most teams.

[CanesFan]

45-60 seconds (roughly avg shift time)

I am really surprised by that average. That doesn't seem like enough time to be on the ice.

Why so frequent?

[CanesFan]

45-60 seconds (roughly avg shift time)

I am really surprised by that average. That doesn't seem like enough time to be on the ice.

Why so frequent?

[CanesFan]

45-60 seconds (roughly avg shift time)

I am really surprised by that average. That doesn't seem like enough time to be on the ice.

Why so frequent?

[CanesFan]

45-60 seconds (roughly avg shift time)

I am really surprised by that average. That doesn't seem like enough time to be on the ice.

Why so frequent?

[goalie33]

I am really surprised by that average. That doesn't seem like enough time to be on the ice.

Why so frequent?

If you've done your job, you're out of gas after 60 seconds.

[goalie33]

I am really surprised by that average. That doesn't seem like enough time to be on the ice.

Why so frequent?

If you've done your job, you're out of gas after 60 seconds.

[goalie33]

I am really surprised by that average. That doesn't seem like enough time to be on the ice.

Why so frequent?

If you've done your job, you're out of gas after 60 seconds.

[goalie33]

I am really surprised by that average. That doesn't seem like enough time to be on the ice.

Why so frequent?

If you've done your job, you're out of gas after 60 seconds.

[Guyute]

slap on some skates and do laps as hard as you can for 60 seconds. you'd be pretty winded... and that's nothing compared to the stop & go, the hitting, etc.. that those guys do in small chunks.

pay close attention the next game you watch... when there's a 5 on 5 and one team has total control in the opposition's zone... it won't last more than about 30 seconds before it's cleared, or there's a penalty. most times it's a penalty after a long grind. because the D can't keep up anymore... they're out of gas. so they grab, trip, hack, whatever, to prevent the goal. if they don't, then the D that has been scrambling for 30+ seconds isn't able to move fast enough to block passes/shots/etc.. and the offense usually has a pretty good scoring chance.

[Guyute]

slap on some skates and do laps as hard as you can for 60 seconds. you'd be pretty winded... and that's nothing compared to the stop & go, the hitting, etc.. that those guys do in small chunks.

pay close attention the next game you watch... when there's a 5 on 5 and one team has total control in the opposition's zone... it won't last more than about 30 seconds before it's cleared, or there's a penalty. most times it's a penalty after a long grind. because the D can't keep up anymore... they're out of gas. so they grab, trip, hack, whatever, to prevent the goal. if they don't, then the D that has been scrambling for 30+ seconds isn't able to move fast enough to block passes/shots/etc.. and the offense usually has a pretty good scoring chance.

[Guyute]

slap on some skates and do laps as hard as you can for 60 seconds. you'd be pretty winded... and that's nothing compared to the stop & go, the hitting, etc.. that those guys do in small chunks.

pay close attention the next game you watch... when there's a 5 on 5 and one team has total control in the opposition's zone... it won't last more than about 30 seconds before it's cleared, or there's a penalty. most times it's a penalty after a long grind. because the D can't keep up anymore... they're out of gas. so they grab, trip, hack, whatever, to prevent the goal. if they don't, then the D that has been scrambling for 30+ seconds isn't able to move fast enough to block passes/shots/etc.. and the offense usually has a pretty good scoring chance.

[Guyute]

slap on some skates and do laps as hard as you can for 60 seconds. you'd be pretty winded... and that's nothing compared to the stop & go, the hitting, etc.. that those guys do in small chunks.

pay close attention the next game you watch... when there's a 5 on 5 and one team has total control in the opposition's zone... it won't last more than about 30 seconds before it's cleared, or there's a penalty. most times it's a penalty after a long grind. because the D can't keep up anymore... they're out of gas. so they grab, trip, hack, whatever, to prevent the goal. if they don't, then the D that has been scrambling for 30+ seconds isn't able to move fast enough to block passes/shots/etc.. and the offense usually has a pretty good scoring chance.

[Shell]

For the Canes, Andrew Hutchinson has the most time on the ice per shift at 51.4 seconds, and Nordgren has the lowest at 39.0
The league high is 66.8 seconds per shift (Adrian Aucoin) and the low is 24.1 for Wade Brookbank (who has only had 9 shifts)

[Shell]

For the Canes, Andrew Hutchinson has the most time on the ice per shift at 51.4 seconds, and Nordgren has the lowest at 39.0
The league high is 66.8 seconds per shift (Adrian Aucoin) and the low is 24.1 for Wade Brookbank (who has only had 9 shifts)

[Shell]

For the Canes, Andrew Hutchinson has the most time on the ice per shift at 51.4 seconds, and Nordgren has the lowest at 39.0
The league high is 66.8 seconds per shift (Adrian Aucoin) and the low is 24.1 for Wade Brookbank (who has only had 9 shifts)

[Shell]

For the Canes, Andrew Hutchinson has the most time on the ice per shift at 51.4 seconds, and Nordgren has the lowest at 39.0
The league high is 66.8 seconds per shift (Adrian Aucoin) and the low is 24.1 for Wade Brookbank (who has only had 9 shifts)

[SouthernHockeyChick]

One scrum along the boards would knock most of us out for the night. It's unbelievable the amount of energy they expend in those battles.

Also, another reason they keep D-pairings (and even forward lines) together is because our lines/pairings will usually be "matched up" with the opposing team's lines/pairings. So, if Ovechkin is on the ice, you want Hedican on the ice. If their grinders are on, we want our grinders on, etc, etc.

[SouthernHockeyChick]

One scrum along the boards would knock most of us out for the night. It's unbelievable the amount of energy they expend in those battles.

Also, another reason they keep D-pairings (and even forward lines) together is because our lines/pairings will usually be "matched up" with the opposing team's lines/pairings. So, if Ovechkin is on the ice, you want Hedican on the ice. If their grinders are on, we want our grinders on, etc, etc.

[SouthernHockeyChick]

One scrum along the boards would knock most of us out for the night. It's unbelievable the amount of energy they expend in those battles.

Also, another reason they keep D-pairings (and even forward lines) together is because our lines/pairings will usually be "matched up" with the opposing team's lines/pairings. So, if Ovechkin is on the ice, you want Hedican on the ice. If their grinders are on, we want our grinders on, etc, etc.

[SouthernHockeyChick]

One scrum along the boards would knock most of us out for the night. It's unbelievable the amount of energy they expend in those battles.

Also, another reason they keep D-pairings (and even forward lines) together is because our lines/pairings will usually be "matched up" with the opposing team's lines/pairings. So, if Ovechkin is on the ice, you want Hedican on the ice. If their grinders are on, we want our grinders on, etc, etc.

[puck_it]

One scrum along the boards would knock most of us out for the night. It's unbelievable the amount of energy they expend in those battles.

this is definatly true.

[puck_it]

One scrum along the boards would knock most of us out for the night. It's unbelievable the amount of energy they expend in those battles.

this is definatly true.

[puck_it]

One scrum along the boards would knock most of us out for the night. It's unbelievable the amount of energy they expend in those battles.

this is definatly true.

[puck_it]

One scrum along the boards would knock most of us out for the night. It's unbelievable the amount of energy they expend in those battles.

this is definatly true.

[CanesFan]

Next question...

I am watching the Florida vs. NY Rangers game on OLN and they put up the stats at the end of the period and I am wondering how is the number of "Scoring Chances" determined?

Thanks for your help.

[CanesFan]

Next question...

I am watching the Florida vs. NY Rangers game on OLN and they put up the stats at the end of the period and I am wondering how is the number of "Scoring Chances" determined?

Thanks for your help.

[CanesFan]

Next question...

I am watching the Florida vs. NY Rangers game on OLN and they put up the stats at the end of the period and I am wondering how is the number of "Scoring Chances" determined?

Thanks for your help.

[CanesFan]

Next question...

I am watching the Florida vs. NY Rangers game on OLN and they put up the stats at the end of the period and I am wondering how is the number of "Scoring Chances" determined?

Thanks for your help.

[puck_it]

Scoring chances is really arbitrary. theres no real clear cut definition. Im not sure how id define one, other than say break aways, 2 on 1's close shots and such... thenks where the goaltender skill came into play.

[puck_it]

Scoring chances is really arbitrary. theres no real clear cut definition. Im not sure how id define one, other than say break aways, 2 on 1's close shots and such... thenks where the goaltender skill came into play.

[puck_it]

Scoring chances is really arbitrary. theres no real clear cut definition. Im not sure how id define one, other than say break aways, 2 on 1's close shots and such... thenks where the goaltender skill came into play.

[puck_it]

Scoring chances is really arbitrary. theres no real clear cut definition. Im not sure how id define one, other than say break aways, 2 on 1's close shots and such... thenks where the goaltender skill came into play.

[Alicia]

Aren't scoring chances determined by shots actually on goal, that would've gone in if the goalie hadn't made a save?

[Alicia]

Aren't scoring chances determined by shots actually on goal, that would've gone in if the goalie hadn't made a save?

[Alicia]

Aren't scoring chances determined by shots actually on goal, that would've gone in if the goalie hadn't made a save?

[Alicia]

Aren't scoring chances determined by shots actually on goal, that would've gone in if the goalie hadn't made a save?

[Shell]

Aren't scoring chances determined by shots actually on goal, that would've gone in if the goalie hadn't made a save?
Nope, that is 'shots on goal' which is a different stat. I have to agree with Puck_it that 'scoring chanes' is an arbitrary stat.. in my mind, it's a shot on goal that had a very good chance of going in as opposed to hitting the goalie square in the chest.

[Shell]

Aren't scoring chances determined by shots actually on goal, that would've gone in if the goalie hadn't made a save?
Nope, that is 'shots on goal' which is a different stat. I have to agree with Puck_it that 'scoring chanes' is an arbitrary stat.. in my mind, it's a shot on goal that had a very good chance of going in as opposed to hitting the goalie square in the chest.

[Shell]

Aren't scoring chances determined by shots actually on goal, that would've gone in if the goalie hadn't made a save?
Nope, that is 'shots on goal' which is a different stat. I have to agree with Puck_it that 'scoring chanes' is an arbitrary stat.. in my mind, it's a shot on goal that had a very good chance of going in as opposed to hitting the goalie square in the chest.

[Shell]

Aren't scoring chances determined by shots actually on goal, that would've gone in if the goalie hadn't made a save?
Nope, that is 'shots on goal' which is a different stat. I have to agree with Puck_it that 'scoring chanes' is an arbitrary stat.. in my mind, it's a shot on goal that had a very good chance of going in as opposed to hitting the goalie square in the chest.

[StormChaserBH]

Aren't scoring chances determined by shots actually on goal, that would've gone in if the goalie hadn't made a save?

Found this as part of some instructions for keeping the "scoring chance" statistic, which jibes with the way I've read elsewhere, so here tis:

This statistic is a measuring stick for showing which team has had the best scoring opportunities and which goaltender has had to make the more difficult saves. This will probably be the scorekeeper's judgment, or it may be a collaborative effort of several people. A quality scoring chance for a team of 10-year-olds will be different from a scoring chance with a group of 17-year-olds. The stat may vary between scorekeepers, but at the end of each game a judgment can usually be made regarding which team had the better opportunities to score. A shot bouncing off the pipe is not a shot on goal, but very probably a quality scoring chance. A player on a breakaway who loses the puck without getting a shot on goal may have contributed a quality scoring chance. A 2-on-1 could be a quality scoring chance even if a resulting shot misses the net. Some shots on goal are quality chances while others may be weak...resulting in easy routine saves with little chance to score. You be the judge! Some shots on goal are quality scoring chances while other may not be. A quality scoring chance may not be a shot on goal. A pattern usually emerges by the end of the game.


it's a shot on goal that had a very good chance of going in as opposed to hitting the goalie square in the chest.


Not quite, you can get a quality scoring chance without even getting a shot off.... the two stats tell different stories.

[StormChaserBH]

Aren't scoring chances determined by shots actually on goal, that would've gone in if the goalie hadn't made a save?

Found this as part of some instructions for keeping the "scoring chance" statistic, which jibes with the way I've read elsewhere, so here tis:

This statistic is a measuring stick for showing which team has had the best scoring opportunities and which goaltender has had to make the more difficult saves. This will probably be the scorekeeper's judgment, or it may be a collaborative effort of several people. A quality scoring chance for a team of 10-year-olds will be different from a scoring chance with a group of 17-year-olds. The stat may vary between scorekeepers, but at the end of each game a judgment can usually be made regarding which team had the better opportunities to score. A shot bouncing off the pipe is not a shot on goal, but very probably a quality scoring chance. A player on a breakaway who loses the puck without getting a shot on goal may have contributed a quality scoring chance. A 2-on-1 could be a quality scoring chance even if a resulting shot misses the net. Some shots on goal are quality chances while others may be weak...resulting in easy routine saves with little chance to score. You be the judge! Some shots on goal are quality scoring chances while other may not be. A quality scoring chance may not be a shot on goal. A pattern usually emerges by the end of the game.


it's a shot on goal that had a very good chance of going in as opposed to hitting the goalie square in the chest.


Not quite, you can get a quality scoring chance without even getting a shot off.... the two stats tell different stories.

[StormChaserBH]

Aren't scoring chances determined by shots actually on goal, that would've gone in if the goalie hadn't made a save?

Found this as part of some instructions for keeping the "scoring chance" statistic, which jibes with the way I've read elsewhere, so here tis:

This statistic is a measuring stick for showing which team has had the best scoring opportunities and which goaltender has had to make the more difficult saves. This will probably be the scorekeeper's judgment, or it may be a collaborative effort of several people. A quality scoring chance for a team of 10-year-olds will be different from a scoring chance with a group of 17-year-olds. The stat may vary between scorekeepers, but at the end of each game a judgment can usually be made regarding which team had the better opportunities to score. A shot bouncing off the pipe is not a shot on goal, but very probably a quality scoring chance. A player on a breakaway who loses the puck without getting a shot on goal may have contributed a quality scoring chance. A 2-on-1 could be a quality scoring chance even if a resulting shot misses the net. Some shots on goal are quality chances while others may be weak...resulting in easy routine saves with little chance to score. You be the judge! Some shots on goal are quality scoring chances while other may not be. A quality scoring chance may not be a shot on goal. A pattern usually emerges by the end of the game.


it's a shot on goal that had a very good chance of going in as opposed to hitting the goalie square in the chest.


Not quite, you can get a quality scoring chance without even getting a shot off.... the two stats tell different stories.

[StormChaserBH]

Aren't scoring chances determined by shots actually on goal, that would've gone in if the goalie hadn't made a save?

Found this as part of some instructions for keeping the "scoring chance" statistic, which jibes with the way I've read elsewhere, so here tis:

This statistic is a measuring stick for showing which team has had the best scoring opportunities and which goaltender has had to make the more difficult saves. This will probably be the scorekeeper's judgment, or it may be a collaborative effort of several people. A quality scoring chance for a team of 10-year-olds will be different from a scoring chance with a group of 17-year-olds. The stat may vary between scorekeepers, but at the end of each game a judgment can usually be made regarding which team had the better opportunities to score. A shot bouncing off the pipe is not a shot on goal, but very probably a quality scoring chance. A player on a breakaway who loses the puck without getting a shot on goal may have contributed a quality scoring chance. A 2-on-1 could be a quality scoring chance even if a resulting shot misses the net. Some shots on goal are quality chances while others may be weak...resulting in easy routine saves with little chance to score. You be the judge! Some shots on goal are quality scoring chances while other may not be. A quality scoring chance may not be a shot on goal. A pattern usually emerges by the end of the game.


it's a shot on goal that had a very good chance of going in as opposed to hitting the goalie square in the chest.


Not quite, you can get a quality scoring chance without even getting a shot off.... the two stats tell different stories.

[Alicia]

Aren't scoring chances determined by shots actually on goal, that would've gone in if the goalie hadn't made a save?
Nope, that is 'shots on goal' which is a different stat. I have to agree with Puck_it that it is arbitrary.. in my mind, it's a shot on goal that had a very good chance of going in as opposed to hitting the goalie square in the chest

I think that's kinda what I was getting at, not including high, wide, or otherwise "off" shots...but at almost 5 years in, I'm still learning. :beatup:

[Alicia]

Aren't scoring chances determined by shots actually on goal, that would've gone in if the goalie hadn't made a save?
Nope, that is 'shots on goal' which is a different stat. I have to agree with Puck_it that it is arbitrary.. in my mind, it's a shot on goal that had a very good chance of going in as opposed to hitting the goalie square in the chest

I think that's kinda what I was getting at, not including high, wide, or otherwise "off" shots...but at almost 5 years in, I'm still learning. :beatup:

[Alicia]

Aren't scoring chances determined by shots actually on goal, that would've gone in if the goalie hadn't made a save?
Nope, that is 'shots on goal' which is a different stat. I have to agree with Puck_it that it is arbitrary.. in my mind, it's a shot on goal that had a very good chance of going in as opposed to hitting the goalie square in the chest

I think that's kinda what I was getting at, not including high, wide, or otherwise "off" shots...but at almost 5 years in, I'm still learning. :beatup:

[Alicia]

Aren't scoring chances determined by shots actually on goal, that would've gone in if the goalie hadn't made a save?
Nope, that is 'shots on goal' which is a different stat. I have to agree with Puck_it that it is arbitrary.. in my mind, it's a shot on goal that had a very good chance of going in as opposed to hitting the goalie square in the chest

I think that's kinda what I was getting at, not including high, wide, or otherwise "off" shots...but at almost 5 years in, I'm still learning. :beatup:

[Shell]

what StormChaser posted was certainly better worded than my statement and I definitely agree with it. (I never have won an award on writing ;))

[Shell]

what StormChaser posted was certainly better worded than my statement and I definitely agree with it. (I never have won an award on writing ;))

[Shell]

what StormChaser posted was certainly better worded than my statement and I definitely agree with it. (I never have won an award on writing ;))

[Shell]

what StormChaser posted was certainly better worded than my statement and I definitely agree with it. (I never have won an award on writing ;))

[Alicia]

Yeah. Looks like 'arbitrary' was a good word choice.

[Alicia]

Yeah. Looks like 'arbitrary' was a good word choice.

[Alicia]

Yeah. Looks like 'arbitrary' was a good word choice.

[Alicia]

Yeah. Looks like 'arbitrary' was a good word choice.

[SouthernHockeyChick]

And don't forget, sometimes even an actual goal does not result in a scoring chance being added to the tally....for example when they score on you from the blue line because your goalie is cheating to play the puck.


LOL, I was just checking out Forslund's most recent blog....

But it really is the "scoring chance" that is the true barometer of the way a team is playing on both sides of the puck... I will say that the "scoring chance" is very subjective... We keep them in the booth, the coaches keep them. I'm sure there are members of the print media that keep them... The league does not... Strange brew here (that's for you, Ginger Baker) isn't... To me, it's very important...You have to understand that the definition of this stat is hard to agree on... Ask three hockey people to interpret a "scoring chance" and you might get three different view points... Bottom line is, it's when a team has a legitimate chance to score... If you saw Maxime Talbot score Friday night for the Pens (a dump in from center that caught a snoozing tender), although it's a goal, it is not a scoring chance. I hope you get my drift (a 60's or 70's phrase for you who are picking up what I am laying down)... The point of all of this is the Canes have outchanced their opponents in all five games... This is impressive... To me, the most impressive is the chances against... In the "Swamps," the chances were 28-9 Canes... Yeah it was reflective but sometimes a "hot goalie" can ruin the way we look at games... Chances are (does anyone remember Johnny Mathis?) if a team keeps on pushing, they eventually will get wins... It also plays out how you play with the lead - something the Canes have done very well... For instance, the Caps last Wednesday had little or no chances (zero in the third period) in the second and third periods... That was not the case in the first, and Nicky Wallin does not count for anybody.

[SouthernHockeyChick]

And don't forget, sometimes even an actual goal does not result in a scoring chance being added to the tally....for example when they score on you from the blue line because your goalie is cheating to play the puck.


LOL, I was just checking out Forslund's most recent blog....

But it really is the "scoring chance" that is the true barometer of the way a team is playing on both sides of the puck... I will say that the "scoring chance" is very subjective... We keep them in the booth, the coaches keep them. I'm sure there are members of the print media that keep them... The league does not... Strange brew here (that's for you, Ginger Baker) isn't... To me, it's very important...You have to understand that the definition of this stat is hard to agree on... Ask three hockey people to interpret a "scoring chance" and you might get three different view points... Bottom line is, it's when a team has a legitimate chance to score... If you saw Maxime Talbot score Friday night for the Pens (a dump in from center that caught a snoozing tender), although it's a goal, it is not a scoring chance. I hope you get my drift (a 60's or 70's phrase for you who are picking up what I am laying down)... The point of all of this is the Canes have outchanced their opponents in all five games... This is impressive... To me, the most impressive is the chances against... In the "Swamps," the chances were 28-9 Canes... Yeah it was reflective but sometimes a "hot goalie" can ruin the way we look at games... Chances are (does anyone remember Johnny Mathis?) if a team keeps on pushing, they eventually will get wins... It also plays out how you play with the lead - something the Canes have done very well... For instance, the Caps last Wednesday had little or no chances (zero in the third period) in the second and third periods... That was not the case in the first, and Nicky Wallin does not count for anybody.

[SouthernHockeyChick]

And don't forget, sometimes even an actual goal does not result in a scoring chance being added to the tally....for example when they score on you from the blue line because your goalie is cheating to play the puck.


LOL, I was just checking out Forslund's most recent blog....

But it really is the "scoring chance" that is the true barometer of the way a team is playing on both sides of the puck... I will say that the "scoring chance" is very subjective... We keep them in the booth, the coaches keep them. I'm sure there are members of the print media that keep them... The league does not... Strange brew here (that's for you, Ginger Baker) isn't... To me, it's very important...You have to understand that the definition of this stat is hard to agree on... Ask three hockey people to interpret a "scoring chance" and you might get three different view points... Bottom line is, it's when a team has a legitimate chance to score... If you saw Maxime Talbot score Friday night for the Pens (a dump in from center that caught a snoozing tender), although it's a goal, it is not a scoring chance. I hope you get my drift (a 60's or 70's phrase for you who are picking up what I am laying down)... The point of all of this is the Canes have outchanced their opponents in all five games... This is impressive... To me, the most impressive is the chances against... In the "Swamps," the chances were 28-9 Canes... Yeah it was reflective but sometimes a "hot goalie" can ruin the way we look at games... Chances are (does anyone remember Johnny Mathis?) if a team keeps on pushing, they eventually will get wins... It also plays out how you play with the lead - something the Canes have done very well... For instance, the Caps last Wednesday had little or no chances (zero in the third period) in the second and third periods... That was not the case in the first, and Nicky Wallin does not count for anybody.

[SouthernHockeyChick]

And don't forget, sometimes even an actual goal does not result in a scoring chance being added to the tally....for example when they score on you from the blue line because your goalie is cheating to play the puck.


LOL, I was just checking out Forslund's most recent blog....

But it really is the "scoring chance" that is the true barometer of the way a team is playing on both sides of the puck... I will say that the "scoring chance" is very subjective... We keep them in the booth, the coaches keep them. I'm sure there are members of the print media that keep them... The league does not... Strange brew here (that's for you, Ginger Baker) isn't... To me, it's very important...You have to understand that the definition of this stat is hard to agree on... Ask three hockey people to interpret a "scoring chance" and you might get three different view points... Bottom line is, it's when a team has a legitimate chance to score... If you saw Maxime Talbot score Friday night for the Pens (a dump in from center that caught a snoozing tender), although it's a goal, it is not a scoring chance. I hope you get my drift (a 60's or 70's phrase for you who are picking up what I am laying down)... The point of all of this is the Canes have outchanced their opponents in all five games... This is impressive... To me, the most impressive is the chances against... In the "Swamps," the chances were 28-9 Canes... Yeah it was reflective but sometimes a "hot goalie" can ruin the way we look at games... Chances are (does anyone remember Johnny Mathis?) if a team keeps on pushing, they eventually will get wins... It also plays out how you play with the lead - something the Canes have done very well... For instance, the Caps last Wednesday had little or no chances (zero in the third period) in the second and third periods... That was not the case in the first, and Nicky Wallin does not count for anybody.

[StormShaman]

Anyone who throws in a reference to one of the greatest bands of all time (Cream) is officially Damn Cool(tm) in my book. :D

[StormShaman]

Anyone who throws in a reference to one of the greatest bands of all time (Cream) is officially Damn Cool(tm) in my book. :D

[StormShaman]

Anyone who throws in a reference to one of the greatest bands of all time (Cream) is officially Damn Cool(tm) in my book. :D

[StormShaman]

Anyone who throws in a reference to one of the greatest bands of all time (Cream) is officially Damn Cool(tm) in my book. :D

[CanesFan]

Delayed penalty? Why is it delayed and at what time will game play be stopped to enforce the penality?

[SouthernHockeyChick]

Delayed penalty? Why is it delayed and at what time will game play be stopped to enforce the penality?

If the Canes are in possession of the puck and in the offensive zone and the other team commits a penalty, they will hold off on blowing the play dead so as not to interupt our offensive chance. They won't blow the whistle until the team who commited the penalty gains possession of the puck.

When this happens, as I'm sure you know, we can pull our goalie and send a 6th skater on the ice. It sorta gives an extended PP.

Someone else tell us....if we scored during the delayed penalty, will we get the PP anyway? I can't remember that!

[AbNormal27]

Someone else tell us....if we scored during the delayed penalty, will we get the PP anyway? I can't remember that!

Nope, the penalty is nullified....... unless it is a double minor or major penalty that is to be called. In the case of the double minor, a single minor penalty is called. In the case of the major penalty, the 5 minute major is still called.

Aaryn

[Shell]

When this happens, as I'm sure you know, we can pull our goalie and send a 6th skater on the ice. It sorta gives an extended PP.
Unless of course one of your guys passes the puck back and it goes in our own net *coughniccough* :beatup:

[MeanGene]

I noticed something in the Philly game. When Stillmanstole the puck and scored, the ref raised his hand to signal a penalty after the puck had left Stillman's stick and went into the goal. It was probably about a 1/2 second difference. Even though we scored on the delayed penalty, we still got a power play. Is that supposed to be what happens?

[tommy]

I noticed something in the Philly game. When Stillmanstole the puck and scored, the ref raised his hand to signal a penalty after the puck had left Stillman's stick and went into the goal. It was probably about a 1/2 second difference. Even though we scored on the delayed penalty, we still got a power play.

AFAIK, as long as the shot is on its way, any action resulting in a penalty is still called. Makes sense, since we have no control over the puck after it's going on net. Basically...

Is that supposed to be what happens?

Yes. :D

[goalie33]

The infraction must've been after the goal was already scored. In that case, the penalty is not delayed, it just took place after the play was over, and would be assessed like any penalty that takes place during a stoppage.

[SouthernHockeyChick]

Stillman scored on the PP. When someone is already in the box and we get a delayed penalty and then score, that person comes out of the box but the new penalty won't be nullified.

[Jay]

Stillman scored on the PP. When someone is already in the box and we get a delayed penalty and then score, that person comes out of the box but the new penalty won't be nullified.

Yep. That's exactly what happened.

[4DFan]

In light of the 15 round shootout between the Caps and Rangers this evening my husband posed a question that I haven't been able to figure out an answer to.

What happens if you run through all of your shooters? Does your back up goalie have to take a shot? or do you just cycle around?

The NHL on-line rule book (http://www.nhl.com/rules/rule89.html#b) says:
(NOTE 2) Three (3) players from each team shall participate in the shootout and they shall proceed in such order as the Coach selects. All players are eligible to participate in the shootout unless they are serving a ten minute misconduct or have been assessed a game misconduct, gross misconduct or match penalty.

(NOTE 3) Once the shootout begins, the goalkeeper cannot be replaced unless he is injured. No warm up shall be permitted for a substitute goalkeeper.

(NOTE 4) Each team will be given three shots, unless the outcome is determined earlier in the shootout. After each team has taken three shots, if the score remains tied, the shootout will proceed to a "sudden death" format. No player may shoot twice until everyone who is eligible has shot.


Which to me could be read either way, thoughts?

[goalie33]

In soccer shootouts, the goalies shoot at each other before the rotation starts again. As much as people argue about the shootout being a donkey show, I don't think having the goalies (let alone the backups) barrel down on each other is 1) practical, or 2) a good way to decide a game when the format itself is controversial enough. I'd say all eighteen skaters have to shoot before you can repeat one.

[puck_it]

id love to see the goalie shoot :beatup:

[StormChaserBH]

No player may shoot twice until everyone who is eligible has shot

Hmmm, my thought is how do they treat injured players and "eligible" ?? If the Caps had lost a player to injury during the game and this shootout goes a few more rounds, they go back to Ovechkin while the Rangers are still working through their defensemen? Doesn't sound fair, and may lead to "injuries" we didn't really see happen, hmmm.... Course as we saw tonight, the most unlikely heroes can win the shootout anyway.

[Jay]

I'd *love* to see the goalies shoot. That'd be awesome.

[goalie33]

Turco, The Rick, and Brodeur? Yes.

Weekes, Garon, and Mason? Not so much.

[puck_it]

Weekes, Garon, and Mason? Not so much.

I THOUGHT YOU APPRECIATED GOOD COMEDY

[goalie33]

Well-played, clerks.

[tommy]

Well-played, clerks.

:laugh: :laugh:

[caveman]

I have a "broken stick" question. Obviously it is a penalty if a player plays the puck with a broken stick. It is also a penalty if you are judged to purposefully throw your stick.

What about: there is a broken stick (or helmet, glove) on the ice, and you use your own stick to push the debris at the puck carrier? It happened at least 3 times in the playoffs during Canes games, and I never saw a penalty called.

[Guyute]

Yeah, I saw it too. A couple were horribly blatant too. It's supposed to be called if you push it into the path of a player. It used to be called. I haven't looked ot see if it was removed from the rule book.
My guess? It's still in there. the refs we had were too concerned with calling hooking/holding penalties that they forgot there was a rule regarding debris on the ice.

[puck_it]

I have a "broken stick" question. Obviously it is a penalty if a player plays the puck with a broken stick. It is also a penalty if you are judged to purposefully throw your stick.

What about: there is a broken stick (or helmet, glove) on the ice, and you use your own stick to push the debris at the puck carrier? It happened at least 3 times in the playoffs during Canes games, and I never saw a penalty called.

if you throw your stick at the puck in the defending zone its a penalty shot. ala frank kaberles PS against nashville