|
|
Post by Black Cat on Jan 8, 2009 13:55:30 GMT -5
In the NHL? I don't recall such situation. But it's true that having three/four cameras pointing to net from the seat, another one from the top, another behind the net and over the board, and a last one inside the actual net, chances for a goaltender or a player to move the net deliberately to avoid a goal without being caught are very slim.
|
|
|
|
Post by Simey on Jan 8, 2009 22:41:18 GMT -5
In the NHL? I don't recall such situation. But it's true that having three/four cameras pointing to net from the seat, another one from the top, another behind the net and over the board, and a last one inside the actual net, chances for a goaltender or a player to move the net deliberately to avoid a goal without being caught are very slim. That's good. Is it a known trick in lower leagues? It was something I'd wondered about before I'd ever heard of it happening, since it seems such an easy play, but I'd assumed that it was not so straightforward to bring the net off its moorings as to be practical - apparently I was wrong. Whilst not knocking them at all, the Blaze coach was bemoaning the lack of training and practice that U.K. officials get and the way that that can negatively impact on games, like it may have done on Sunday. But I suppose that as many dodgy decisions are likely to go the way of a particular team as against them, so perhaps it evens itself out over the course of a season. In such a critical match though, it's frustrating. |
|
|
|
Post by Simey on Feb 3, 2009 16:36:39 GMT -5
Went to Coventry again on Sunday night - braving ice and snow! (sort of) - and Coventry lost to Sheffield again. It's starting to look like the Blaze will be battling for second place this season. Technically I think they can still win the league, but they really needed to take points off Sheffield in all the remaining matches between the two teams in order to make that realistic, and this time they didn't even get one point by reaching extra time.  Oh well, I suppose you could argue that it makes the Elite League more exciting to not have Coventry win the title all the time, but it's frustrating to see them losing matches which I'm pretty sure last year's team would've won. The biggest factor is the change of goalie: JF Perras is very good, but Trevor Koenig - goalie for the previous two seasons - was awesome! I'm a little behind events in the NHL, 'cause I'm still catching up with the game I recorded two weeks ago between Atlanta and Philadelphia - not very gripping - and haven't even got to the All Star match or the skills competition that I recorded last week. |
|
|
|
Post by Black Cat on Feb 3, 2009 16:40:32 GMT -5
All-Star game was a good one... well, let's say the ending was good. I won't spoil you how it ended if you don't know it already.
|
|
|
|
Post by Simey on Feb 14, 2009 10:08:02 GMT -5
The need to do muchos ironing provided me with ample opportunity to catch up on the All-Star match and the skills competition last week, and it was all hugely enjoyable. It seems that Montréal did the occasion proud (18, 000 people at the practice!?!!), and the match was a very good one, in particular the ending as you say, BC!
Carey Price was on good form - it's a shame about that goal late on in the first or he might have been the goalie that let fewest goals in! (Maybe he still was....?)
And the skills competition was really good fun. I thought it might be a bit dull, but the broadcasters had a couple of players - Zach Parise and Mark Suvar - miced up and their comments from within the competitions made it very involving, entertaining viewing, particularly when Suvar came second in the shoot-out. And it is simply a lot of fun seeing these million-dollar athletes chilling out and having some fun.
I have to say actually that having the physical aspect of hockey removed from the All-Star game simply because they don't want to risk injury does promote a completely different, skills-oriented type of hockey, which was a joy to watch. The physical side of hockey is very cool as well, but I have been wondering: have the rules have ever been any different so as to reduce the physical nature of play and promote more subtle skills? I've never seen any European hockey - hockey in the U.K. is very North American in style - but I've heard that it is less physical and more technical; is that perhaps because of more stringent rules about what is allowed with regard to hits and such like?
|
|
|
|
Post by Black Cat on Feb 14, 2009 12:23:09 GMT -5
I don't know about the rules, but it is true that European hockey is less physical than in North America. I can't easily explain this, but perhaps it has something to do with the size of the rink. The NHL rink is smaller than anywhere else in the world (approx. 61m X 26m for the NHL, 61m X 30m for international rule) and there are several differences in the shape of the rink:
-Corners: NHL: arc of a circle of a radius of 28', International: arc of a circle of a radius of 14'
-Goal lines: NHL: 11' (3.35m) from the back end, Int.: 4m
-Blue lines: NHL: 64' (19.5m) from the goal line, Int.: 58' (17.67m) from the goal line
-Red line: Of course, having the offensive/defensive zone bigger in the NHL, the neutral zone is smaller than in international ruling.
-Goal crease: NHL: square Int.: half circle
A lot of people argue that the international rink gives the players more space to play, which is true since there is more space behind the net, more space in the defensive/offensive zones (don't be fool by the fact the blue line is placed further down the ice in the NHL than in international ruling: because of the width of the ice, the offensive/defensive zone measures only 507m2 in the NHL versus 530m2 in international ruling) and the neutral zone is bigger. The goaltender has a bigger crease too. Therefore, there is less contact between players on an international rink.
Another reason to explain that European hockey is less physical than in North America might also be the mentality. In NA, hockey players are taught very young to play a physical game while in Europe, the physical aspect is not very important. This might have something to do with the global psychology of the NA nations versus the one of European countries, but I won't go in there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Simey on Feb 14, 2009 12:41:40 GMT -5
It's interesting about the size of the rinks - did the smaller rinks come about via a deliberate policy of the NHL or simply because of the size of the rinks that already existed in North America? It is said that the Victoria Skating Ring in Montreal hosted the first recorded indoor hockey game in history. Therefore, it's dimensions were used to set the standards for other hockey rinks in NA. As for the International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF), it is said to have very little influence on the rules of the national organizations in NA (which explains why Canada has wore for so many years their national federation logo as the main logo on its jersey in international games, which is against the IIHF ruling). So it explains why the rinks are different between the NHL and the IIHF. The later one seems to prefer the metric system over the imperial one used in NA, which could also explain why the rink is larger: they prefer nice round numbers (30m X 61m) instead of the approximation that gives use the conversion of the imperial system in the metric system (200' X 85' gives us 60.98m X 25.9m. so I guess they went with nice round numbers) I think they mostly revert to their national style. Don't forget that while some of the players are in the NHL, a lot of national teams don't necessarily bring all the NHLers in the Olympics. It all depends of the general manager of the team. Also, don't forget that only the USA and Canada are playing a physical style. That's two teams on the 8-10 teams in the tournament. That's hard to say for me. I don't get to see many international games between European countries. I remember though that back in the days the USSR had a style that was very different than the one used in Sweden, Finland and Czekoslovakia. I don't know if today Russia plays a very much different style than Slovakia or the Czech Republic, although the Czechs seem to be better than the Slovakians. There's only one year left before the Olympics. Yeah! The torch relay will pass in front of my office on December 11th. My grandma has pics she took in 1976 when the relay passed there for the Montreal Olympics. Don't know if it also came around here for the 1988 Olympics in Calgary... |
|
|
|
Post by Black Cat on Feb 14, 2009 20:23:28 GMT -5
Simey, I'm really sorry, but I inadvertly modified your post instead of quoting it!  |
|
|
|
Post by jan on Feb 15, 2009 4:28:14 GMT -5
although the Czechs seem to be better than the Slovakians.  I'm not sure. I play hockey a lot - but only on a frozen pond with my friends. (not this weekend - we have about 70 cm of snow here, so I'm going skiing this afternoon) I don't watch hockey a lot on TV, I don't read or talk about it, so I'm not sure about current styles and performances of different European teams. But it was always said that Russians are very very fast and very very good at skating; and that Czechs and Slovaks prefer more "wise" style with a lot of "wise" passes etc. - but it's probably only a national stereotype, nothing else. I don't know. But I think that Czech and Slovak styles are almost the same. |
|
|
|
Post by Simey on Feb 15, 2009 8:01:17 GMT -5
Simey, I'm really sorry, but I inadvertly modified your post instead of quoting it! How very dare you!  Nah, it's alright - saves space really, doesn't it! ;D (And it's not as if I haven't come very close to doing that before, once or twice.) It's interesting about the metric vs. imperial measurements - I'm sure you're right that that has a lot to do with it. I think I'm right in saying that Canada generally works with the metric system now, yes? So the imperial system measured rinks must me a hangover from some time back. What you mentioned earlier about the corners of the rinks is rather telling as well, since the larger curved part of the NHL rink corners possibly cause the puck to move more fluidly around the back of the net and also to rebound more frequently towards the goal, both things that likely make scoring opportunities more common and the game more intense. The rinks at the Olympics are presumably of international standard dimensions; is this perhaps a little bit of a disadvantage for the Canadian and U.S. teams? In the U.K., by the way, I don't think the Elite League has standard size rinks, 'cause the teams have to use whatever they've got. Just like on variably sized football pitches - even of the Premier League - the EIHL teams have to adapt to the size of their opponents' rink when they play away games. I assume there's not a huge amount of difference, but I have heard that there is definitely some. What is maybe a little surprising - and very cool - is that a relatively small country like the Czech Republic is such an absolute giant in the hockey world! I suppose that more than most team sports, it's a game governed by climate, which is why - despite being an awesome sport - it's a minority sport in the U.K., 'cause you either play indoors in one of the relatively few ice rinks per head of population, or you don't play at all, since ponds and lakes very rarely freeze to the point of being safe to walk on, let alone skate on! So I'm just grateful that decent hockey is played in this country at all! Albeit mostly by Canadians! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by jan on Feb 15, 2009 8:33:00 GMT -5
What is maybe a little surprising - and very cool - is that a relatively small country like the Czech Republic is such an absolute giant in the hockey world! I suppose that more than most team sports, it's a game governed by climate, Scientifically speaking (*cough*), I think there are always two groups of factors explaining these things - "hard" and cultural. In the case of hockey in the Czech Republic, it may be like this: "HARD" factors: 1) Climate - it's obvious (I'm living in a highland in about 650 metres above the sea level, the winters are relatively tough here with a lot of snow and ice etc.) 2) Abundance of ponds - small artificial lakes built in Middle Ages to produce fish (since we have no natural lakes or seas), which freeze in winter. CULTURAL (institutional) factors: 3) It's simply very popular and traditional - most boys from e.g. 5 to 20 years play football in summer and hockey in winter, these are two most popular sports here. 4) Influence of communism - during communism (1948 - 89), there were simply no ways for... how to put it... self-fulfilment, if you know what I mean. The people just worked for 8 hours a day in a boring job with no perspective, they couldn't travel, anything. So, the only things you could do were hobbies, and second-housing (cottages), and sports. And, the communist regime supported sport clubs massively (because if you give bread and games to people, they don't revolt). So - we have a good indoor ice-hockey stadium (built from 1960s to 1980s) in almost every town over 10.000 inhabitants, we have a generation of outstanding couches from these times, we have a huge organisation of teams, leagues, etc. 5) There is still a strong support (from sponsors and municipal governments) to local hockey teams, and also to young players. Simply: Most of the boys here want to play hockey, and most of them have good opportunities to do so. |
|
|
|
Post by Simey on Feb 15, 2009 9:17:59 GMT -5
I gotta love how I make an off-hand, ill-educated comment and get a really interesting, well- reasoned response! Thank you, Jan, for such an abundance of intriguing information! That's particularly interesting about the artificial lakes - I had no idea there were no natural ones in the Czech Republic. What sort of size do these artificial ones tend to be? Hockey rink sized?  And, yeah, whilst I imagine that national communism messed an awful lot of things up, providing basic amenities is possibly something that was done rather well. I would think also that the focus on sports was to do with making countries under communist regimes look good to the outside world. It's good that there is still strong support for sports from local government; I don't think the importance of the provision of things like good sports and arts opportunities can be underestimated - I think social problems often stem from lack of things to do with free time, particularly with regards to young people. So then, if communism is a big reason for the game's success in parts of Central and Eastern Europe, what's Canada's excuse? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Black Cat on Feb 15, 2009 20:05:58 GMT -5
So then, if communism is a big reason for the game's success in parts of Central and Eastern Europe, what's Canada's excuse? ;D We created the sport?  Probably, but the fact is that the Czechs are ranked 5th (before the US in 6th place) in the world and the Slovaks are in 8th. BTW, the UK is ranked in 29th place, right behind China. And yes, Canada do work with the metric system. When it comes to internation rinks, I think you are right by saying that the Canadians and Americans are often said to not be able to adapt quickly to the different dimensions of the ice. For 2010 however, I think they will use the NHL-size rinks since both arenas (including the Vancouver Canucks' home GM Place) are of North American size (it would cost way too much to modify them). |
|
|
|
Post by jan on Feb 16, 2009 8:05:56 GMT -5
Simey: According to the statistics (*cough*), there are approx. 21.000 ponds in the Czech Republic with a total area of 51.000 hectares, so that the average size is about 2 hectares. However, a typical pond is smaller - bellow one hectare or so, I cannot tell exactly. I hope you don't want me to re-calculate this into imperial units...
|
|
|
|
Post by Simey on Feb 19, 2009 9:22:47 GMT -5
21000!? Wow! That's an incredible number considering they were man-made! And lots of good hockey-playing surfaces in the winter! For 2010 however, I think they will use the NHL-size rinks since both arenas (including the Vancouver Canucks' home GM Place) are of North American size (it would cost way too much to modify them). Just to make absolutely sure that Canada wins? ;D Is that GM (Place) as in General Motors? I wish these places could have proper names. I know sponsorship is crucial, but things like the O2 Arena in London....well, it's a shame it couldn't have a more cultural, less money-oriented name. |
|
