Why are the players benches on the same side of the ice?

[Roof Daddy]

Tonight a bad line change caused an offside challenge to overrule a goal that may have cost the Avs a WCF berth. I’ve seen a number of goals get called back in this manner, so it begs the question - why have the benches of both teams on the same side of the ice, thus causing one end of each teams bench to be inside the blue line? Is there any benefit? All I see is potential detrimental results.

- more offsides

- more hacks, slashes and chirping when players are going off

- long change in the 2nd period

Why not have the benches right at center ice on opposite sides, as well as penalty boxes.

 

[majormajor]

Good question. They're on opposing sides in some college and minor pro rinks, so I'm guessing this is a matter of league regulation.

 

[Viqsi]

In before the inevitable neophobic "HOW DARE YOU TRY TO CHANGE THE GAME" posts, even though no change was proposed.

 

[Calad]

This seems like a smart change for the reasons you noted above. I wonder where they'd move the scorekeepers bench to, though

 

[Hynh]

At this point it's a TV thing.

 

[BlueDream]

It does make a lot more sense for one team’s bench/penalty box to be on one side and the other team’s on the other.

However, that would decrease the amount of trash talking, which would suck as a fan lol.

 

[93LEAFS]

It would hurt the primary camera angles at this point, which is why the camera is on the penalty box side of the ice.

 

[Deadpool8812]

It does make a lot more sense for one team’s bench/penalty box to be on one side and the other team’s on the other.

However, that would decrease the amount of trash talking, which would suck as a fan lol.

exactly what the league wants

 

[ProspectsSTC]

In before the inevitable neophobic "HOW DARE YOU TRY TO CHANGE THE GAME" posts, even though no change was proposed.

Yeah you show those windmills!

 

[Chainshot]

Back in the '80's, they shifted to move all the benches to be on the same side of the ice. It was thought to cut down on the amount of time the players were directly interacting with one another while sitting on the bench, thus cutting down on fighting.

The old Boston Garden in particular -- with the B's bench and both penalty boxes on the same side -- was the one that I remember most.

 

[Monk]

I like that the naughty players have to sit in the box and face their team and think about what they did.

But seriously it does make sense to have the penalty boxes between the 2 blue lines, which would be tough to do with a bench in the middle on both sides.

 

[Peter Easton]

2 reasons

1. the TV folks think having the both benches directly across from the cameras is makes for better viewing
2. it was thought that the team that's bench was right next to the penalty box would have an advantage when a penalty expired.

Most of the newer arenas, or ones being renovated for Minor Hockey use have the benches and penalty boxes all on the same side. I get the reason, but I also don't like it as it makes it difficult to keep an eye on the other team's bench

 

[Its a Trap]

It would hurt the primary camera angles at this point, which is why the camera is on the penalty box side of the ice.

I never notice any camera problems with games in Edmonton.

 

[ijuka]

I have always wondered about this myself. If they were in the middle, on the opposite sides of the ice, then there wouldn't need to be such a long, awkward change distance in the 2nd period and all the periods would be equal.

The more important consideration is indeed the penalty box. The solution would be having multiple penalty boxes, but that might become annoying, too.

 

[Gunnersaurus Rex]

Probably dates back to early days and dressing room locations. Even now, smaller, older arenas typically have all the dressing rooms on the same side of the building.

 

[kladorf2005]

Probably dates back to early days and dressing room locations. Even now, smaller, older arenas typically have all the dressing rooms on the same side of the building.

Pretty sure there are at least a dozen arenas where the visiting team has to cross the ice to get to the dressing room. It's especially noticeable when someone has to go in for an injury or equipment malfunction and can't come back out until there's a stoppage.

It's also pretty obvious when you're at the game and you watch the coaches walking in a single file line using the boards as a railing on their way in and out from intermission.

 

[supsens]

Probably dates back to early days and dressing room locations. Even now, smaller, older arenas typically have all the dressing rooms on the same side of the building.

That’s what I was thinking, probably easier on security and design if all the players entered/changed in the same basic area.

 

[supsens]

Pretty sure there are at least a dozen arenas where the visiting team has to cross the ice to get to the dressing room. It's especially noticeable when someone has to go in for an injury or equipment malfunction and can't come back out until there's a stoppage.

It's also pretty obvious when you're at the game and you watch the coaches walking in a single file line using the boards as a railing on their way in and out from intermission.

Don’t they go out the corner on the same side most of the time?

 

[kladorf2005]

Don’t they go out the corner on the same side most of the time?

Not in Carolina. They have to walk around the boards behind the net. I know there are others too. Trying to find a list online somewhere. But it's more arenas than most people realize. I would venture to guess about 10-15 out of the 31.

 

[Khelandros]

Not in Carolina. They have to walk around the boards behind the net. I know there are others too. Trying to find a list online somewhere. But it's more arenas than most people realize. I would venture to guess about 10-15 out of the 31.

Mostly the older rinks in the league. Teams did this to get competitive advantage.

 

[tony d]

Yeah, having the benches on the opposite side of the ice would make sense to me.

 

[Gunnersaurus Rex]

Tonight a bad line change caused an offside challenge to overrule a goal that may have cost the Avs a WCF berth. I’ve seen a number of goals get called back in this manner, so it begs the question - why have the benches of both teams on the same side of the ice, thus causing one end of each teams bench to be inside the blue line? Is there any benefit? All I see is potential detrimental results.

- more offsides

- more hacks, slashes and chirping when players are going off

- long change in the 2nd period

Why not have the benches right at center ice on opposite sides, as well as penalty boxes.

Having benches on same side also makes it easier for refs to monitor line changes for too many men penalties.

 

[izzy]

bad for television if they arent both in view of the same camera

 

[cbcwpg]

Tonight a bad line change caused an offside challenge to overrule a goal that may have cost the Avs a WCF berth. I’ve seen a number of goals get called back in this manner, so it begs the question - why have the benches of both teams on the same side of the ice, thus causing one end of each teams bench to be inside the blue line? Is there any benefit? All I see is potential detrimental results.

- more offsides

- more hacks, slashes and chirping when players are going off

- long change in the 2nd period

Why not have the benches right at center ice on opposite sides, as well as penalty boxes.

The benches back in the day used to be on opposite sides. But according the the brain trust at the NHL... It gave the home team an advantage because after a penalty the home-team player only has to skate a couple of feet to his bench and the poor visiting teams player has to skate all the way across the massive expanse of ice to get to his bench.

And now that it's obvious that playing 82 games to get home-ice advantage really means jack...Maybe it would be OKAY for the home-team to have a small home ice advantage.

And count up the number of incidents that happen each game between players because the benches are on the same side. Pretty much every line change you have to have an official policing the area.

 

[Its a Trap]

Tonight a bad line change caused an offside challenge to overrule a goal that may have cost the Avs a WCF berth. I’ve seen a number of goals get called back in this manner, so it begs the question - why have the benches of both teams on the same side of the ice, thus causing one end of each teams bench to be inside the blue line? Is there any benefit? All I see is potential detrimental results.

- more offsides

- more hacks, slashes and chirping when players are going off

- long change in the 2nd period

Why not have the benches right at center ice on opposite sides, as well as penalty boxes.

Cant believe I blew past the op at first but this is a bit silly.

First of all, this call didn’t cost the Avs anything. The game ended 3-2 so if you want to argue anything of the sort, they lost the chance to play in overtime, it wasn’t a tie breaking goal that was wiped off and and San Jose scored a third goal. It’s a crazy hypothetical argument to make.

Second, the second period is the “long change”. No just lifting the puck out to center ice and changing everyone, you have to work gain the line and than you can dump in otherwise you risk an odd man rush the other way. I don’t have any numbers or the time to look it up at work, but if you had to ask me when I think most odd man rushes happen in a game, I’d guess the second period because it’s so much easier for it to happen.

Which brings us to the point that the leagues argument would be it increases scoring which makes any argument against it moot because goals are what the league wants more of.

The benches are on the same side in basketball as well. I really don’t see the issue.

You need to be aware of what’s going on. If you’re in the second period and doing a u-turn to rush back into the zone you better make sure your teammates are behind the line or off the ice before you cross it. If you can’t pay attention to that for the one period that it usually matters, oh well.