Fastest recorded skating speed in NHL is just over 24 mph, and only 1 player currently listed over 250 with no concern about 30 mph. Hitting in today's NHL is largely a bump but there are few who inflict damage still.I'd like to see your face if you got hit by 250 lbs. going 30 mph into a wall.You would probably crumble like a week old cookie.
Around the NHL - Part 1 [MOD: Other Team News Goes Here]
- Thread starter Mosby
- Start date
Mangosteen
Yotes Ashtray of the NHL
- Apr 9, 2018
- 1,421
- 1,473
I wouldn't get back up.. all you would hear is oh sh.....I'd like to see your face if you got hit by 250 lbs. going 30 mph into a wall.
- Feb 16, 2012
- 23,446
- 20,201
He's not really young though (same age as Lawson Crouse). He'll be 28 in September. This was his ninth NHL season.
Coyotedroppings
Registered User
- Jul 16, 2017
- 6,380
- 6,487
Young to me, may not be young to you!
In this case, young by NHL standards favors your comment. By my standards, he's still developing, his game still evolving, he's mentally young, if that makes you happy. Point being, he's always been an offensive stud, and I've noticed he's put more emphasis on his defensive game this post season, which imo shows he's starting to grasp what it will take for him to help his team reach the ultimate goal. Regardless of his age, I don't think there is a snowballs chance in hell of AM having the "loser attitude" that you claimed.
I know the older I get (and that's getting to be disturbingly old), the more I realize, just how much I have yet to learn!
Last edited:
Young to me, may not be young to you!
In this case, young by NHL standards favors your comment. By my standards, he's still developing, his game still evolving, he's mentally young, if that makes you happy. Point being, he's always been an offensive stud, and I've noticed he's put more emphasis on his defensive game this post season, which imo shows he's starting to grasp what it will take for him to help his team reach the ultimate goal. Regardless of his age, I don't think there is a snowballs chance in hell of AM having the "loser attitude" that you claimed.
I know the older I get (and that's getting to be disturbingly old), the more I realize, just how much I have yet to learn!
One of the sayings my dad liked to say is, "the more you learn, the less you know." Cute way of saying that when you learn something new, it opens up a whole new world of stuff for you to learn about it, and the more aware you become of realizing the whole host of recorded human knowledge available to you.
- Jan 3, 2012
- 14,301
- 12,963
Made me think of:
"...as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know." - Donald Rumsfeld
Coyotedroppings
Registered User
- Jul 16, 2017
- 6,380
- 6,487
The call on Aho tonight was a prime example of why officials need to keep the whistles at bay, unless the penalty directly affects play, or is an egregious infraction.
Edit: fixed “affects”
Edit: fixed “affects”
Last edited:
Or how about they call the guy who does the original cross check and ignore the slight push back rather than penalize the guy who didn't start it.
Coyotedroppings
Registered User
- Jul 16, 2017
- 6,380
- 6,487
Trouble is, as I’m sure you know, the retaliation is what is too often all that is seen / called.
I'm sure one of the 4 can see the initial or take the latest copout and call a 5 giving you the chance for replay. But just stop letting the rats get an advantage over and over. Not that tonight's had a rat
Mangosteen
Yotes Ashtray of the NHL
- Apr 9, 2018
- 1,421
- 1,473
That's my problem is there should be no retaliation!! We have enough cameras if a player crosscheck it should be a coaches challenge. Someone retaliates bag skate them the next practice but get the refs to call the game to the rules.
2 suggested changes 1 coach challenge to high sticks and cross checks.
Automatic 5 minute major to fighting to the player that throws the first punch.
Cleans up the game quickly. Frick I should have Gary's job.
2 suggested changes 1 coach challenge to high sticks and cross checks.
Automatic 5 minute major to fighting to the player that throws the first punch.
Cleans up the game quickly. Frick I should have Gary's job.
Dirty Old Man
Extinct Elephant Fan
"Sometimes when you win, you really lose, and sometimes when you lose, you really win, and sometimes when you win or lose, you actually tie, and sometimes when you tie, you actually win or lose." - Gloria Clemente
Coyotedroppings
Registered User
- Jul 16, 2017
- 6,380
- 6,487
Coyotedroppings
Registered User
- Jul 16, 2017
- 6,380
- 6,487
Seems like most want less challenges though. I'm fine where it's currently at, myself.
Two things came to mind when I read this, and the first one is related to "sometimes when you win, you really lose" (the concept of a Pyrrhic victory).
The other one was a quote from a soccer player, whose team (which was I think either Ireland or Northern Ireland) played in a tournament where their three matches in the group stage all ended in draws. "We beat England 1-all, we lost to (some other country I forgot) nil-all, and we drew with the Dutch."
Speaknng of challenges why exactly should a Coach have to ask to review a goal? If a goal in the last minute is important enough to get an automatic review then so should a goal in the first minute. They all count the same and should be treated the same.
That's a good point, and I do think that the league could tweak the review process on questionable goals. I know a few things about how the process works (such as your mention that all goals in the last minute of regulation and at any point in overtime are automatically reviewed), but not everything, and the underlying principle I believe is that there should be perhaps more situations where the officials can initiate their own review instead of forcing a coach to challenge the goal. Here's what I do know, at least:
-All goals are subject to review in some way, but I think all they do is take a quick look to make sure the puck actually crossed the goal line and there's nothing blatantly obvious on a quick look at the scoring play that could disallow it.
-All goals scored in the final minute of regulation, and at any point in overtime, are subject to review (as mentioned earlier by you). This would be redundant to say if it didn't imply that they look at more than what they do for all goals.
-There should be a mechanism in place where if a referee is unsure about a goal, he can initiate a review himself. I'm pretty sure this mechanism already exists, but assuming it does, I don't see it used very often, and I'm not sure if it's because referees are heavily restricted about when they're allowed to initiate a review on their own, or if they choose not to even though they could.
Regarding the last one, I'd compare it to rugby, which is a sport I like in addition to hockey, and of the sports I like, I think it has the best review process. The referee can initiate a review of a scoring play without having to make his own call of it first (although he can phrase what he says to the video review guy to indicate that he's reasonably sure what happened, but wants to double check just in case). For example, in a close call, he can ask the video review straight up "try or no try?" (to indicate that he's just not sure himself) or he can ask "is there any reason that I cannot award the try?" (to indicate that he's pretty sure that a team scored but wants to double check).
While I could get long-winded to the point of rambling (and possibly incoherently) about all the tiny details, I don't think I feel like it right now, so won't but I'll add one last thing: if the referee initiates his own review and makes a ruling, I don't think a coach should be able to challenge it anymore for the same thing. That's redundant and just makes them review it again for no good reason.
I think it was Friedman a few weeks ago talking about spending an evening in the Ops department to see how things like challenges and such get handled. One thing he mentioned that stuck with me was that they are reviewing every zone entry in real time in case a goal is scored so they are ready quickly for a Challenge. So again if they have already looked why not just go to commercial after every goal and complete the review process making sure they get it right?
I wouldn't go so far as to go to commercial after every goal, but if they can quickly conclude that it was obviously a good goal (including the zone entry being legal) by the time the referee skates over to the scorer's table, they should let him know that (although they might already be doing that). Or if they're not sure yet by that time, that there's something questionable that the referee may have missed, they can let him know that too (which they also might already be doing). Then the referee can make the call about whether to initiate a review process or not (such as the scorekeeper letting him know that there was possibly a hand pass leading up to the goal, but the referee say something like "yeah I saw that, I definitely ruled it legal as not a hand pass, let's not review it").
Sounds good, you're hired!!!! Where's the Staples button?
While I do have on-ice officiating experience at the amateur level, it would be quite the jump for me to suddenly take on the job of NHL officiating director (which I think is what you're hinting at). NHL rules also differ in several areas when compared to USA Hockey rules. For the sake of my own curiosity, I'll run through some of the major differences.
-Checking from behind is generally permitted in the NHL. While there's a rule to cover it in the NHL rules, it only covers hitting a player from behind who's defenseless or unable to protect himself. It must also be called as a major plus game misconduct (or match penalty), and in practice I've legitimately never seen it called. Also in practice, a player who hits an opponent from behind is often guilty of something else (such as boarding), so they'll call that instead.
-Faceoff locations differ quite a bit. While I stopped officiating USA Hockey after the 15-16 season and they may have changed it, faceoffs can occur anywhere on an imaginary line running between the two end zone faceoff dots (and through the neutral zone faceoff dots). The center ice faceoff dot is only used to start periods or after goals. While I won't get into the nuances of how they differ, I will mention a major one, which is that the faceoff location to begin a power play is a "last play" faceoff, with the exception that a team on a power play cannot begin a power play in their own zone, so the faceoff is brough out to the neutral zone instead. In the NHL, power plays begin with an attacking zone faceoff (with a few exceptions).
-USA Hockey prescribes "automatic" icing rather than hybrid icing. There is an addendum to cover hybrid icing, which can be optionally used, but the rules state that automatic icing is preferred.
-Rules on kicking the puck are much less permissive in USA Hockey when it comes to goals (kicking the puck is otherwise legal in all zones). There is no "distinct kicking motion" rule and redirects off the skate or leg result in the goal being disallowed unless it was clearly an incidental deflection. There are a lot of times I see something called as a good goal in the NHL (and correctly so) that would be illegal in USA Hockey rules.
-Attacking players in the crease are restricted heavily in USA Hockey, and so are rules about interfering with the goaltender. The NHL allows incidental contact, whereas USA Hockey does not. The USA Hockey rules are essentially the same as how it used to be in the NHL, stating that an attacking player may not precede the puck into the crease for any reason. You can even blow a play dead for a "crease violation" which will bring the faceoff out to the neutral zone, but in practice, if a player quickly passes through the crease (unless the puck is quickly put into the net afterwards, in which case the goal is disallowed) it gets let go, and if an attacking player is in the crease you yell at him to get out and give him a chance to do so, only calling the crease violation if he refuses to leave.
-The standard of enforcement in USA Hockey is generally stricter. It's similar to how you would see things called in IIHF tournaments. Lots of things that would be uncalled in the NHL are generally called in a USA Hockey game. There are sometimes things in the NHL that get let go and I think to myself "wow, that would be worth 5 and a game in USA Hockey rules." One of the bigger examples is that if you injure an opponent with a penalty, it's automatically 5 and a game. This includes high sticks that draw blood (which are a double minor in the NHL), although you don't really have to call it much since most players are wearing full facemasks (I did have to call it once though). On a side note, unless they've changed it recently, adult players are permitted to not even wear a visor if they so (stupidly) choose.
-Game misconducts result in an automatic suspension for a number of games equal to how many game misconducts you've received that season. I think there's a rule where if you get a third one, you get suspended indefinitely pending a disciplinary hearing, but I'm not sure about that one. Also, match penalties are automatically an indefinite suspension pending a disciplinary hearing.
There are more, but I think I'll stop here before I get carried away.
Do you have any passion for hockey and officiating??? LOL I KID I KIDWhile I do have on-ice officiating experience at the amateur level, it would be quite the jump for me to suddenly take on the job of NHL officiating director (which I think is what you're hinting at). NHL rules also differ in several areas when compared to USA Hockey rules. For the sake of my own curiosity, I'll run through some of the major differences.
-Checking from behind is generally permitted in the NHL. While there's a rule to cover it in the NHL rules, it only covers hitting a player from behind who's defenseless or unable to protect himself. It must also be called as a major plus game misconduct (or match penalty), and in practice I've legitimately never seen it called. Also in practice, a player who hits an opponent from behind is often guilty of something else (such as boarding), so they'll call that instead.
-Faceoff locations differ quite a bit. While I stopped officiating USA Hockey after the 15-16 season and they may have changed it, faceoffs can occur anywhere on an imaginary line running between the two end zone faceoff dots (and through the neutral zone faceoff dots). The center ice faceoff dot is only used to start periods or after goals. While I won't get into the nuances of how they differ, I will mention a major one, which is that the faceoff location to begin a power play is a "last play" faceoff, with the exception that a team on a power play cannot begin a power play in their own zone, so the faceoff is brough out to the neutral zone instead. In the NHL, power plays begin with an attacking zone faceoff (with a few exceptions).
-USA Hockey prescribes "automatic" icing rather than hybrid icing. There is an addendum to cover hybrid icing, which can be optionally used, but the rules state that automatic icing is preferred.
-Rules on kicking the puck are much less permissive in USA Hockey when it comes to goals (kicking the puck is otherwise legal in all zones). There is no "distinct kicking motion" rule and redirects off the skate or leg result in the goal being disallowed unless it was clearly an incidental deflection. There are a lot of times I see something called as a good goal in the NHL (and correctly so) that would be illegal in USA Hockey rules.
-Attacking players in the crease are restricted heavily in USA Hockey, and so are rules about interfering with the goaltender. The NHL allows incidental contact, whereas USA Hockey does not. The USA Hockey rules are essentially the same as how it used to be in the NHL, stating that an attacking player may not precede the puck into the crease for any reason. You can even blow a play dead for a "crease violation" which will bring the faceoff out to the neutral zone, but in practice, if a player quickly passes through the crease (unless the puck is quickly put into the net afterwards, in which case the goal is disallowed) it gets let go, and if an attacking player is in the crease you yell at him to get out and give him a chance to do so, only calling the crease violation if he refuses to leave.
-The standard of enforcement in USA Hockey is generally stricter. It's similar to how you would see things called in IIHF tournaments. Lots of things that would be uncalled in the NHL are generally called in a USA Hockey game. There are sometimes things in the NHL that get let go and I think to myself "wow, that would be worth 5 and a game in USA Hockey rules." One of the bigger examples is that if you injure an opponent with a penalty, it's automatically 5 and a game. This includes high sticks that draw blood (which are a double minor in the NHL), although you don't really have to call it much since most players are wearing full facemasks (I did have to call it once though). On a side note, unless they've changed it recently, adult players are permitted to not even wear a visor if they so (stupidly) choose.
-Game misconducts result in an automatic suspension for a number of games equal to how many game misconducts you've received that season. I think there's a rule where if you get a third one, you get suspended indefinitely pending a disciplinary hearing, but I'm not sure about that one. Also, match penalties are automatically an indefinite suspension pending a disciplinary hearing.
There are more, but I think I'll stop here before I get carried away.
Is that a rhetorical question?
Jokes aside, I definitely do. I just have a penchant for trying to understand exactly how things work, which is why I've done things like read the rule book and the CBA in my free time. I like to be informed. I can be very nitpicky and pedantic about things as a result, often to a fault. I think I'm halfway decent about analyzing plays, since I also played.
On the other hand, when it comes to analyzing players (and prospects) or trying to make trade proposals where I analyze the trade value of assets, well, I suck at that, and sometimes end up making stupid threads on the trade board like inquiring about the availability of Tage Thompson the other day.
The last paragraph just might explain where the atic part comes from after fan!!!! We go with 75% heart abd 25% mind when talking about our team.Is that a rhetorical question?
Jokes aside, I definitely do. I just have a penchant for trying to understand exactly how things work, which is why I've done things like read the rule book and the CBA in my free time. I like to be informed. I can be very nitpicky and pedantic about things as a result, often to a fault. I think I'm halfway decent about analyzing plays, since I also played.
On the other hand, when it comes to analyzing players (and prospects) or trying to make trade proposals where I analyze the trade value of assets, well, I suck at that, and sometimes end up making stupid threads on the trade board like inquiring about the availability of Tage Thompson the other day.
Mangosteen
Yotes Ashtray of the NHL
- Apr 9, 2018
- 1,421
- 1,473
In the NHL, cross-checking occurs when a player uses their stick shaft, held with both hands, to forcefully check an opponent with the stick not in contact with the ice. A minor penalty (2 minutes) is typically assessed for cross-checking. However, a major plus game misconduct penalty (5+10 minutes) can be assessed if the cross-check is reckless and endangers an opponent, and a match penalty (player ejection) may be assessed for attempting to injure or deliberately injuring an opponent
Where are the calls?
Where are the calls?
