History of Hockey Rink Dimensions and Shapes

[Canadiens1958]

Many fine threads and images of old hockey and NHL arenas. What this thread will try to do is look at the history of the actual NHL or other pro league rink dimensions and shapes. To illustrate we look at the shape of the Dey Arena in Ottawa -used by the Senators from 1908 until the spring of 1923.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ottawa-Arena-Plan-1907.jpg

The most striking part of the architectural drawing is that while the rink dimensions are 200 x 80 feet, the two ends do not have any straight sections.

So where were the nets positioned?

Contemporary spécifications:

https://www.google.ca/search?q=nhl+...nhl.com%2Fice%2Fpage.htm%3Fid%3D26394;800;406

After the two defensive zones were increased from 60 to 64 feet.

Click to read more...

 

[Killion]

That was the 3rd arena built by the Dey Brothers of Ottawa, serious hockey fans (quite the family of entrepreneurs, boat builders etc), seating 7000, natural ice surface, eventually sold to the National Capital Comm & taken down in the late 20's or early 30's as it had been surpassed with the building boom of newer more modern arenas elsewhere.... and... its exterior was apparently beyond brutalist in terms of design. Ugly... Interior photos Ive seen show the same curved ends absent straight boards so I'd assume they'd have placed the nets center 10' out from the center longitudinal line of the ice's surface. Very interesting design. Some alterations wouldve had to have been made in dealing with shoot-in's & other deep zone play. Not unusual during the Challenge Cup era prior to the age of rink size & configuration standardization.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Trying to put myself in the shoes of the guys who played on that ice, it seems to me that the curved ends would have effectively narrowed the offensive zone, by forcing the play toward the center lane. If you took the puck wide of the net, you would run out of real estate in a hurry. And without any real corners, pucks sent around the boards would come back out with a lot more zip than usual.

Seems like a rink that would suit a defensive-minded team like the Sens.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Exactly

Trying to put myself in the shoes of the guys who played on that ice, it seems to me that the curved ends would have effectively narrowed the offensive zone, by forcing the play toward the center lane. If you took the puck wide of the net, you would run out of real estate in a hurry. And without any real corners, pucks sent around the boards would come back out with a lot more zip than usual.

Seems like a rink that would suit a defensive-minded team like the Sens.

Exactly, plus getting caught behind the net or making a bad pass out from behind the net would create an odd man advantage on the transition.

Plus a strong home ice advantage would exist especially against western teams in SC Finals.

 

[Killion]

Yep, good points, critical thought in action there guys.... Alternately I dont know if either of you have ever played on or considered square rinks & corners? I never played a league or organized game on such but certainly a great deal of shinny on natural ice with squared corners. That was certainly a lot of fun, challenging in terms of stickhandling & developing those skills. Literally cornered. You quickly learn to use your skates & the boards, take advantage of whatever opponents weaknesses might be, playing it backwards, sideways, inside out etc.

 

[Hoser]

From another thread:

Again, I could be wrong, but, I believe the 200' x 85' rink was originally regulated by either the NHA, the PCHL, or the NHL (or perhaps an earlier predecessor of those pro leagues). And then other North American leagues conformed to that rink size. Meanwhile, across the pond the IIHF independently regulated the 200' x 98' rink, and in Europe it became the standard.

The 200'x85' rink was standardized by the NHL in 1929. The older rinks before then were all about the same size—Ottawa Auditorium was 200x80 as was Dey's Arena before it, Mutual Street Arena in Toronto was 200x80 and so too was Hamilton's Barton Street Arena. Westmount Arena in Montreal was 200x85 and the Forum was too. When the Bruins joined the NHL in 1924 they played at Boston Arena (still standing and known today as Matthews Arena), which was 200x80 as well. Pittsburgh's Duquesne Gardens was capable of hosting an enormous sheet well over 200' long but it was reduced to 200' when the Pirates began playing there.

The first building that was smaller was Madison Square Garden. The third building to bear the name, opened in 1925 to host the Americans, had a surface only 186' long (by 86' wide). It was designed primarily as a boxing venue. Teams were added in Chicago and Detroit and they would build new arenas too. Detroit's Olympia was 200'x83' but Chicago Stadium was only 188' long, and Boston's new Garden was 191'x83'. Rather than allow arena-builders to come up with their own (smaller) sizes the NHL codified the 200'x85' size in 1929, following the example set by the Westmount Arena and Montreal Forum. Maple Leaf Gardens and every arena built for an NHL team since has been 200'x85'.

I believe the Boston Garden was the last of the old, smaller rinks.

The Aud in Buffalo was 196'x85' (and not built for NHL hockey), and was used by the Sabres until 1996. It just barely beat out Boston Garden and Chicago Stadium for the title of "last of the old, smaller rinks".

(FYI Pittsburgh Civic Arena (which was also not built for NHL hockey) was 205x85 when it opened; it wasn't reduced to 200x85 until 1974. The only other arena I know of off the top of my head that was used for NHL hockey and didn't meet the 200'x85' standard was the Cow Palace in Daly City, California; the Sharks' first home was only 185'x85'.)

As far as I know Hockey Canada has nothing to say about ice sizes in the rules but have notations in the rules about zone, goal line sizes/depths to accomadate different sizes.

On the contrary, one of the very first rules in the book is rink size. You're right that the rules about where to mark the zone lines and such are written to accommodate different rink sizes but the rules (for new arena construction) are that the maximum is 200x100 and minimum is 200x85. The CAHA, forerunner of Hockey Canada, adopted 200x85 as its recommended size in 1938.


For the record the IIHF rule book doesn't have a hard, set size. It calls for a maximum of 61 m by 30 m (a little over 200'-1" by 98'-5") and minimum of 56 m by 26 m (~183'-9" x 85'-3"). Anything in between is acceptable, but IIHF-sanctioned competitions are supposed to be held on surfaces 60-61 m long by 29-30 m wide.

Not every country outside of North America follows the IIHF 60x30 rules. In Finland for example most arenas are 58 m x 28 m (about 190'x91'-10").

 

[Canadiens1958]

Corners

Yep, good points, critical thought in action there guys.... Alternately I dont know if either of you have ever played on or considered square rinks & corners? I never played a league or organized game on such but certainly a great deal of shinny on natural ice with squared corners. That was certainly a lot of fun, challenging in terms of stickhandling & developing those skills. Literally cornered. You quickly learn to use your skates & the boards, take advantage of whatever opponents weaknesses might be, playing it backwards, sideways, inside out etc.

Thank you. Grew-up playing on rinks with three types of corners.

Montreal City Parks and Recreations rinks had 16 foot, 45 degree diagonal corners, various schoolyard and arena rinks had the round corners, though the curve and length of the arcs was not standard from rink to rink.The square corners were used for kiddie rinks.Boards were perhaps two feet high with snow piled high so that kids learning to skate(pre helmet days) would not crash but double over into a snow bank.

Biggest problem on outdoor rinks was the setting sun in late winter on mild days. In the inner city,the shadows due to buildings would create hard and soft ice patches. Shadows were tough on goalies(pre mask days). Favouring the hard ice side had advantages.

Dump and chase on rinks with diagonal boards was erratic since the puck would act differently against the diagonal boards than against arced boards.

Cold was another factor. Some teams did not play very well in minus 20 weather.

The kiddie rinks were fun. Checking was allowed even though not enough speed or momentum was possible to do harm.After a large snowfall it was fun to snowman other kids.

 

[Killion]

After a large snowfall it was fun to snowman other kids.

.... ya, there was that as well as just winding up & firing someones puck into the drifts piled up behind the boards. Kids can be mean. Outdoors during my era was coming to a close in terms of league play but for a few municipal rinks which were outdoors but artificial. The natural ice, squared corners & rough boards, all shinny at local schoolyards. No league or school team play at all. So of course from December-mid-March, thats where youd find us every single day & night of the week but for those evenings when we had league games or practices. From 4-6, briefly home for dinner, back out again from 7-9 or 10. Saturday's & Sunday's of course.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Pucks

.... ya, there was that as well as just winding up & firing someones puck into the drifts piled up behind the boards. Kids can be mean. Outdoors during my era was coming to a close in terms of league play but for a few municipal rinks which were outdoors but artificial. The natural ice, squared corners & rough boards, all shinny at local schoolyards. No league or school team play at all. So of course from December-mid-March, thats where youd find us every single day & night of the week but for those evenings when we had league games or practices. From 4-6, briefly home for dinner, back out again from 7-9 or 10. Saturday's & Sunday's of course.

Collecting lost pucks after the thaw started would keep us supplied for the next season.

With the variable ice conditions, even during the same game, players learned to make saucer passes to avoid water on the ice, learned how to play Inside and the perimeter since bad ice along the boards or snow accumulating would force play to the middle, etc.

 

[Killion]

Collecting lost pucks after the thaw started would keep us supplied for the next season.

With the variable ice conditions, even during the same game, players learned to make saucer passes to avoid water on the ice, learned how to play Inside and the perimeter since bad ice along the boards or snow accumulating would force play to the middle, etc.

Ya, and a lot of the older Viceroys come spring looked like theyd been nibbled on by Beavers, Groundhogs. Defective in some way..... But yeah, learning how to play on natural ice, cant be beat really. Uneven surfaces, bubbles, water pools, bare spots or whatever. Obviously you cant play effectively with your head down so its fabulous training in terms of practiced vision, critical thought as to where your going if carrying the puck or passing it, raising it just so to clear a hazard & so on & so forth. And of course with the older tube skates & a wooden stick, no helmet, you enjoyed a wholly organic and natural kinetic connection to the ice, your surroundings, a real feel for and of the puck. Total freedom. I cant ever remember ever being really bothered by the weather no matter how cold, just temporary disappointment when it ended with warmer weather. Too bad kids these days cant enjoy the same quite so broadly, as widely as the earlier generations did what with Global Warming, loss of facilities & so on. Sure it still exists, just not nearly to the extent that it once did in being completely accessible regardless of age, income.

 

[greyraven8]

Not sure if this is the best place for this, but McGill university has old issues of Canadian Architect & Builder online.
http://digital.library.mcgill.ca/cab/


Found these two pages on rinks in a 1907 issue.
http://digital.library.mcgill.ca/cab/volume%2020/Issue%202/v20n2p20.gif

http://digital.library.mcgill.ca/cab/Volume%2020/Issue%202/v20n2p21.gif

 

[Canadiens1958]

Excellent

Not sure if this is the best place for this, but McGill university has old issues of Canadian Architect & Builder online.
http://digital.library.mcgill.ca/cab/


Found these two pages on rinks in a 1907 issue.
http://web.library.mcgill.ca/cab/volume%2020/Issue%202/v20n2p20.gif

http://web.library.mcgill.ca/cab/volume%2020/Issue%202/v20n2p21.gif

Excellent contribution.

McGill has an extensive digital Library but it offers only a small fraction of their holdings.

The data is available if one if willing to go down to each city' Construction Permits division or whatever name the city uses and go thru the archives manually since I have yet to find any that are digitalized. Some have snuck out due to compilations of architect's works, etc