Ask the hockey guy

In My Humble Opinion
21

re: Miracle – it’s sparked my current interest in the sport, and spurred me to learn more about the legendary '80 Olympic squad. I’ve already bought the HBO documentary and am reading Mike Coffey’s The Boys of Winter: The Untold Story of a Coach, a Dream, and the 1980 U.S. Olympic Hockey Team (2005).

I picked up the bit about shooting off the “wrong” foot from p. 340 – that was how Team Captain Mike Eruzione scored off of Myshkin in the middle of the third period! From p. 340: “Eruzione moved right. He pulled up. He had room. He let fly with a twenty-five-foot wrist shot off the wrong foot. Vasily Pervukhin, No. 5 in red, went down to block it. He didn’t get it…”.

I really recommend this book for anyone who is similarly interested – or obsessed – with the making of the “Miracle on Ice”. It could have so much more info, of course – think of all the games the team played on its way to the Olympics – but what’s there is good. Paragraphs fleshing out the backgrounds and personalities of the players, quotes of the Russian participants (some interviewed in Russia by the author)… it’s all good. :slight_smile:

OK, now back to the regular Q&A!

22

Long time hockey fan checking in (1984 was a long time ago now, no?). Mainly just wanted to say that this is an excellent thread. Moreover, I’m getting horribly nostalgic for watching Paul Coffey lead a rush up the ice…not many more beautiful things in the world.

My questions:

  1. Do you think the NHL needs more scoring or more scoring opportunities? In other words, is the trap (defense) what’s really killing the game?

  2. Is there really a “Western Canadian Old Boys Network” that insists on getting linebackers on skates on rosters instead of skill players? Or in other words, an anti-European bias?

Finally, my comment on fighting in hockey (and I’d love to hear your opinion
CMiller): It’s a fast game with a lot of contact, so aggression is going to happen. I’d rather there weren’t fights, but it’s a million times better than stick fouls. Keep the stick down, don’t slash the body, and damn sure don’t spear somebody.

23

Fighting…what a hard issue. Like many people I’m of two minds about the whole thing. On one hand I think it’s an ingrained part of the game that is unique to the sport. Where else (boxing aside) can two guys settle things like men without being ejected and suspended? Whenever I attend a game I always like to see a good fight or two. Not the cheap, jump-em-from-behind nonsense, but the two bruisers standing toe to toe and having at it. Something about it appeals on a very visceral level. I’ll also add that a solid win in a fight for your team can be quite a momentum changer. I personally don’t buy ‘its an outlet for agression’ and that serious stick incidents would rise substantially. The leagues I’m in now don’t allow fighting and there are very few stick offenses, and no more so than when I played Juniors.

On the other hand I realize that it is rather barbaric to let two people stage a mini boxing match in the middle of an otherwise civil hockey game. I’ve spoken to a number of people who are genuinely opposed to the fighting and avoid hockey as a result. I don’t know what proportion of the population they comprise, but it’s certainly not negligable. When I see hockey like the Olympics I could easily imagine a time when fighting would be banned outright. However, I think any serious attempt at eliminating hockey would be met with large and determined resistance.

Overall I think fighting will stay and be a part of the game for some time. Although I can also imagine that 30 years from now fighting will have been eliminated and we’ll all look back and wonder just what we were thinking.

I’ve taken a look at some of the sites dedicated to hockey fights and they’re certainly interesting, but its not a place I linger unless I’m looking for a specific fight. It seems that some people are less interested in the hockey than the fighting. But to each his own…

24

I hate to disagree with the Hockey Guy, but this can’t be the correct explanation, for two obvious reasons:

  1. Half of all the Canadians alive along the St. Lawrence basin, between Windsor and Quebec City, where the weather is essentially the same as it is in, say, New York City or Chicago or Milwaukee. One sixth of all the people in Canada live within sixty miles of Toronto, which is south of Minneapolis-St. Paul and about level with Boston. Another big chunk of Canadians live on the Pacific Coast, where it NEVER snows. And yet the obsession with hockey in those places is just as strong as it is anywhere else in Canada.

  2. Ice here is not “free.” In fact, the price of rink time is very high, and getting higher. Most people these days simply will not play or practice hockey outside. In fact, the cost of hockey here is, if anything, higher, because the demand for ice time is so astronomical. Opening multi-rink facilities to take advantage of the seemingly infinite demand for ice time has become big business here.

The reason hockey is so popular in Canada and not so popular in the USA is exactly the same reason that football is so popular in the USA but not in India, or that soccer is wildly popular in England but not in the USA, or why Australian Rules Football is popular in Australia and nowhere else; Hockey was invented in Canada, has been played there the longest, and is dominated by Canadians; it’s a part of the culture. It’s not in the States. It’s what we are best at. By any objective or honest analysis, Canadians are the best hockey players in the world; it’s the one thing we KNOW we can kick everyone’s asses in. I can’t think of anything else we can honestly say that about. And that’s important to a little country living in the shadow of a mighty one.

We have hockey players on our MONEY, for Christ’s sake. If you were to ask a thousand Canadians “What is the one cultural touchstone that unites Canada?” I bet the answer you’d get most often would be “hockey,” and I am not entirely sure it wouldn’t be my answer. No amount of TV-friendliness or higher scoring will elevate hockey to that level in the USA, not in a thousand years.

25

I think they need more scoring, period. Goal scoring has been in decline for years and I personally think it’s a reason why interest has waned. The turning point in my mind is the 94-95’ season. Right after the Rangers won the Cup hockey was poised to take over the country. Hockey was big again in NY. Then came the lockout. Any momentum built to that point was lost. And look who won the Cup in 95’. The Devils, who patented the stiffling, clutch and grab, neutral zone trap that has allowed less skilled teams to compete with the highly skilled teams of the past decade like the Red Wings and Avalanche. So yes, I think the trap has really hurt the game. I would love to see the refs call interefence for even the slightest offense; let the scorers do what they’re paid to do.

I have absolutely no idea about this. Growing up in Chicago/LA and playing at the levels I did I had very little exposure to people that high up. I imagine there is some level of pro-canadian bias in the league, but I don’t know how far it extends. I will say that it is good to keep 1-2 ‘linebackers on skates’ on the team to protect your stars, but even the days of the guy who could fight and fight only are heading by the wayside. The enforcers today very often manage to contribute with things other than their fists.

As I said earlier I doubt stick fouls would measureably increase without fighting. There will always be incidents like McSorely, but I believe they’d stay isolated. When I ref I do my best to keep my eyes out for stick fouls; that, and checking from behind are the two things I have very little tolerance for. They can cause serious injury and detract from an otherwise glorious game.

26

No offense taken RickJay, as I said earlier, the more opinions the better. This was just speculation on my part. I guess in my mind I have this image of Canada as one big sheet of ice from September-April with people skating to school and work etc… :wink: Not literally of course, but I’d always imagined there were more ice rinks, more pick up games, and just more access than here in the states. My only trip to Canada was in the summer, so I have little first hand exposure.

That’s a shame. I learned to skate on my grandparents pond when I was 3 and always loved it when the neighborhood lake froze over. When I’m home in Chicago over Christmas I try and stop by and show the neighborhod kids a thing or two :wink:

I will certainly agree with you that hockey has been a part of Canada’s national culture like football has in ours and that that plays a major role in why it’s so much more popular up there. You may find people people who argue about the exact origins of hockey, but hockey as know it was certainly developed in Canada.

Canada certainly has and will likely continue to have the best hockey players in the world. Occasionally you will have our Top 20 guys beat your Top 20 guys, but when you started to play 20-40, 40-60 etc… we (and everyone else) would lose consistently. As a ‘mighty’ American I will hand you the hockey title and concede that hockey will never be as big here.

As a side note, I’m eagerly awaiting the day when I can come visit the HHOF up in Toronto. I feel embarassed that I haven’t made it there yet.

27

Good Lord, you must visit it as soon as possible. I recommend staying at the Royal York; it’s not as expensive as it sounds and it’s very close by.

28

Reviving the thread to ask **CMiller[//B] & co. what they think of the recently-announcedrules changes . Here’s a superior write-up, with schematics on the rink changes. Leave it to the Canadians… :slight_smile:

Your thoughts?

29

Thanks for the responses. I never thought allowing two-line passes would change the game so drastically, but I guess there are a lot of things to take into account with a free-flowing game where anyone can go anywhere.

Just one more question…is there a term for when someone other than the goalkeeper stops a shot? I’ve actually seen this on a few occasions, a few of them during empty nets. Somehow, I doubt it’s as anything as simple as “block”.

30

We just call it a “blocked shot”. I don’t think that the NHL even keeps statistics on the number of blocked shots in a game anymore, although I think that some teams and TV broadcasts do. The problem with the statistic is that it can be pretty subjective.

As for the rule changes, I think that some are wrong-headed while some of the changes will be positive. Here’s the full list of changes, and my opinions:

Shootouts to break ties

Shootouts are an abomination. It’s a terrible way to break a tie, and can only be justified in a short tournament like the Olympics or the World Championships. There’s nothing wrong with a tie in the regular season.

Worse, the idiots kept the overtime loss point. A couple of seasons ago, the NHL introduced the OTL point to discourage ties – now a loss in overtime was worth the same as a tie, so the thinking was that teams would go for the extra point, because they had nothing to lose. NHL coaches, however, quickly realized that an overtime loss meant that the team you lost to would gain a point over you in the standings, so you did have something to lose. Given that the OTL point largely failed to discourage ties, and that with shootouts, there won’t be any ties to discourage, keeping the point is stupid.

Touch-up offsides

The NHL returns to the old rule of allowing teams to clear the offensive zone when they go offside to avoid the offside call(this new rule would be far easier to explain with diagrams, and if anyone’s confused on what the rule is, I’ll try to explain it better). I’m of two minds on this. It could help the flow of the game, or it could hurt it. If teams continue to play as they did without touch-up offsides, the effect will be great, as we’ll see fewer stoppages in play. If, however, teams are stupid with the new rule, then we’ll see defencemen just shoot the puck into the offensive zone whenever they get the chance, and essentially turn it over to the other team, as you can’t forecheck when you’re offside. I’ve seen both styles of play in internation contests, so we’ll just have to see.

Smaller goaltender equipment

Great rule. The goalies have just gotten bigger and bigger, and it’s just been ridiculous.

Restrictions on where the goaltender can handle the puck

Another great rule. Goaltenders like Martin Brodeur have really limited the forechecking game because of their puck-handling skills. This rule will make dump-and-chase viable again, which will really help to break the trap.

Larger offensive zones, smaller neutral zone

I really have no idea how this will affect the game. I’ll just have to see.

No line-changes after icing the puck

I came up with this rule change myself six months ago, but discarded it as being too cruel to the defensive team. This will definitely add more offence to the game and reduce icings, so I suppose I can’t complain. Trapping teams, poor defensive teams and teams with weak depth on defence are going to hate this rule, though.

Zero tolerance for interference and obstruction

I’ll believe this one when I see it. It’s the most important part to breaking the trap and ending the dominance of defence in the game, but the NHL has promised to do this every season for the past 5 years and it hasn’t come through yet. If they can finally get the officials to enforce the rules, though, it will finally be the end for trapping teams like New Jersey.

Penalties for goalies for unnecessarily freeze the puck

Define unnecessary and I’ll get back to you on this one. Could be a good rule if used with restraint.

Penalties to defensive players who shoot the puck out of play

I’m very unsure about this rule. Flipping the puck off of the glass is one of the better ways to break the trap, but sometimes players just miss. Worse, the glass in some arenas is simply too low(witness the ACC – I’ve seen bantam rinks with higher glass). With teams unable to ice the puck to relieve offensive pressure, putting off of the glass is the next best option, but now that might be taken away too. I worry that teams that get one good offensive shift might take over the game until they get a power play or a goal.

Emphasis on calling diving, and suspensions for repeat offenders

Absolutely necessary, especially with the promised crackdown on obstruction.

Two-line passes are now legal

[rant]
This is a stupid, stupid rule espoused by people who don’t understand the game of hockey, and especially not the trap. It will not lead to more offence. It will not end the trap – the trap was invented in Sweden, where they’ve never called the two-line pass. Half of the teams at the World Championships, which uses international rules, play the trap. Not calling the two-line pass will have no effect on the trap, except to make defensive players play nearer to their own blueline. I’ve seen international games in which a weak team had a lead in the third period, and their defencemen literally would not leave their own blueline when their team was on offence. And the NHL wants to encourage this?

The intent of the rule is to increase odd-man rushes, which should lead to more goals off of the rush. But to defend against this, teams on offense will have to have their defencemen play further back, outside of the offensive zone. That takes them out of the cycle game, which depends on smart offensive defencemen jumping into the play down low.

The justification for the rule change always comes down to “but the 2002 Olympics were exciting!” Well, if you were to contract the NHL to 8 teams, I’d imagine we’d see some very exciting games with the old NHL rules, too.(case in point: the 2003 All-Star game. It was tied with 5 minutes to go, and all of a sudden both teams wanted to win, and played that way. It was awesome hockey).
[/rant]