Changing on the Fly
Apologies if I've noted this before. Back in the 1950s through the 1970s, hockey play-by-play announcers used the phrase "changing on the fly" much more frequently than they do now, and it's because changing on the fly has become a normal thing rather than an oddity to be noted. The shifts were so much longer back then--as long as two minutes although anywhere between a minute and a minute and a half was the norm--that coaches could usually wait until a break in play to change lines, and so changing on the fly was much more infrequent and something worth commenting on. The phrase was invoked every single time teams changed on the fly. As the shifts became shorter, coaches were forced more and more to change lines on the fly, to the point where it became so common that television announcers merely say such and such a team is changing lines without adding "on the fly." You do still hear "changing on the fly" occasionally, of course, but much less often--oddly enough even though it occurs much more frequently.
And, as someone else noted above, because changing on the fly became so much more frequent, the "too many men on the ice" standard had to become more laxly enforced with players within, say, a meter or even more of the bench considered not active as long as they don't interfere with play. (I don't know if the standard is embodied in a written rule.)
The shorter shifts and consequent increased frequency of changing on the fly have also forced many more shoot-ins across the opposing blue line to give teams the chance to change lines without risking the opposition getting the puck in mid-ice during the change. This, of course, meant a waste of many puck possessions--not a total waste because time was gained to change lines with minimal risk but rather a waste of an attacking opportunity, which may not have amounted to much anyway because of player fatigue. Watching a recent Canadiens match in which there were few stoppages of play, I estimated that one out of every four puck possessions was used to shoot the puck in for purpose of a line change. The frequency of such shoot-ins, in which possession of the puck is deliberately given over to the opposition, arguably has made the game less attractive, although it has enabled shorter shifts and hence contributed to a faster game.
Peter9, excellent overview of how the NHL game was played and described in the 1950s and 1960s.
A few comments.
Until the last generation of hockey, the positioning of home and away team benches was not uniform in each arena the way it is today. Some were side by side other arenas saw the benches on opposite sides. Tha Canadiens at the Forum had the penalty box besides ther bench, separated by the doors that opened at center ice.
This lack of uniformity produced various problems. The too many men on the ice rules were loose, a nod to the lack of uniformity.
One of the problems that arose was that in some arenas the away team would have one of the bench doors in their defensive zone for periods one and three. This presented a problem in period two if the forwards came on on the fly in the offensive zone, not the neutral zone, thereby nullifying a rush with an offside.
Another interesting aspect was that a number of tactics were tolerated that allowed teams to force a stoppage in play. Most popular was freezing the puck along the boards during a possession battle. This would draw a whistle, no penalty, followed by a line change by both teams.
Just like the position of the benches was not standardized, the height and positioning of the plexiglass or safety chicken wire mesh around the rink varied. So players could shoot the puck out of the rink to get a play stoppage.Not a penalty in those days.
Goalies would get a play stoppage by freezing the puck at the slightest sign of danger as long as the puck came from an opposing player. Adept veteran defencemen would trap airbourn pucks against their body without closing their hand(s) on it.
Back to strategy.
Tired visiting teams playing against rested home teams would shorten shifts but talent did not always allow them to compete. Will try to post a link to one such situation. Found it. December 26,1959. Chicago at Montréal. Chicago playing third road game in four days, Canadiens rested, first game in six days.
4-2 game midway thru the third period became a 9-2 runaway.
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=93794181&postcount=1
Teams had to play thru - no mandated time-outs.
In the playoffs, during long overtime games the shifts would get shorter. Sometimes rested players who had little regulation time ice time would have their moment of fame - Cam Conner.
