Why is there such a thing as the "long change" in hockey?

[BurgoShark]

Apologies mods in advance if this belongs in another forum (History of Hockey maybe?). As someone who has only every played pickup/shinny hockey, I have a question about the long change, and some related background questions.

Why does the "long change" exist in hockey? i.e. why are there "home" and "away" benches? Is it just a matter of "this is our bench with our logos on it, and we don't want the bad guys sitting here", or is there an actual reason why the home and away teams keep their benches? If you were designing hockey from scratch wouldn't you just have the teams swap benches for period 2, and back again for period 3, so that the long change isn't necessary? Is it done this way at all levels, or was there a decision made for it added to pro leagues to increase scoring?

This adds a follow up question... why do teams switch ends in hockey at all? Most sports the end-change is to balance out any advantage of weather/environmental factors. Hockey is played indoors. What does switching ends actually achieve? Is it just a legacy of when hockey actually was played outdoors? Again - is this done at all levels, or just at levels where there are lots of spectators (I understand the "entertainment" value in an NHL game of being able to see each team on the attack)?

I'm curious to know if young kids play this way in house leagues etc. The vast majority of young kids will never go on to play at higher levels, so why not just make the game as simple as possible? Either swap benches, or just pick an end and skate that way for the whole game. Seems like the kids would figure it out quicker, and you'd end up with less confusion on the ice, and less frustrated coaches.

Thanks guys

 

[rypper]

Apologies mods in advance if this belongs in another forum (History of Hockey maybe?). As someone who has only every played pickup/shinny hockey, I have a question about the long change, and some related background questions.

Why does the "long change" exist in hockey? i.e. why are there "home" and "away" benches? Is it just a matter of "this is our bench with our logos on it, and we don't want the bad guys sitting here", or is there an actual reason why the home and away teams keep their benches? If you were designing hockey from scratch wouldn't you just have the teams swap benches for period 2, and back again for period 3, so that the long change isn't necessary? Is it done this way at all levels, or was there a decision made for it added to pro leagues to increase scoring?

This adds a follow up question... why do teams switch ends in hockey at all? Most sports the end-change is to balance out any advantage of weather/environmental factors. Hockey is played indoors. What does switching ends actually achieve? Is it just a legacy of when hockey actually was played outdoors? Again - is this done at all levels, or just at levels where there are lots of spectators (I understand the "entertainment" value in an NHL game of being able to see each team on the attack)?

I'm curious to know if young kids play this way in house leagues etc. The vast majority of young kids will never go on to play at higher levels, so why not just make the game as simple as possible? Either swap benches, or just pick an end and skate that way for the whole game. Seems like the kids would figure it out quicker, and you'd end up with less confusion on the ice, and less frustrated coaches.

Thanks guys

There's the whole access to the locker room thing to think about.

 

[Prairie Habs]

They swap ends so fans at either end of the arena have an opportunity to see their team at their closer end.

They don't swap benches because your bench leads to your dressing room.

 

[BurgoShark]

They swap ends so fans at either end of the arena have an opportunity to see their team at their closer end.

I addressed this in the op. This is a good reason for swapping ends in NHL games, but not for hockey in general.

Do teams swap ends in beer league or u13 games? Serious question.

They don't swap benches because your bench leads to your dressing room.

There's the whole access to the locker room thing to think about.

Yeah - but that’s a construction/logistical decision made by the NHL as a result of hockey teams swapping ends. It is not the reason for it. i.e. Swapping ends came first, so the arena was built to match.

Having a shared tunnel from locker rooms to playing field is the norm for most other sports. No reason why the arena would not accomodate it if hockey was setup that way. Most arenas outside the NHL likely still do.

 

[rypper]

Having a shared tunnel from locker rooms to playing field is the norm for most other sports.

I think Torts showed us why that might be a bad idea for the NHL.

 

[BurgoShark]

I think Torts showed us why that might be a bad idea for the NHL.

You see what I mean though, right? The decision to swap ends but not swap benches pre-dates big crowds, multimillion dollar salaries, coaches in suits, etc. The the NHL does these things NOW doesn’t explain why these things are part of hockey in the first place.

Either…
- the long change has always been part of the game, because someone “way back when thought” that it was important to have separate home and away benches, or

- the idea of not swapping benches was made by someone much later, and they either deliberately or inadvertently introduced the long change

 

[Windy River]

Its not that easy- the bench is filled with equipment, water bottles, towels, notes, electronics, etc just for that team. Not to mention a considerable volume of human refuse (spit/saliva). Its neither practical nor sanitary.

 

[BurgoShark]

Its not that easy- the bench is filled with equipment, water bottles, towels, notes, electronics, etc just for that team. Not to mention a considerable volume of human refuse (spit/saliva). Its neither practical nor sanitary.

Yet another answer which tells me why it is practical for NHL teams to do this today, but doesn't tell me why hockey is played like this. The professional version of the game =/= "The Game".

(yeah - I understand this is an NHL forum, but where else do I find people with hockey knowledge).

 

[LightningStorm]

Having a shared tunnel from locker rooms to playing field is the norm for most other sports. No reason why the arena would not accomodate it if hockey was setup that way. Most arenas outside the NHL likely still do.

Like the NHL, the NBA, NFL, and MLB each have separate tunnels for the 2 teams from the playing surface to locker room.

As for the long change, the fact that it only happens for one period is a concession in itself.

 

[rypper]

You see what I mean though, right? The decision to swap ends but not swap benches pre-dates big crowds, multimillion dollar salaries, coaches in suits, etc. The the NHL does these things NOW doesn’t explain why these things are part of hockey in the first place.

Either…
- the long change has always been part of the game, because someone “way back when thought” that it was important to have separate home and away benches, or

- the idea of not swapping benches was made by someone much later, and they either deliberately or inadvertently introduced the long change

Who knows. It could have come way back when from some, now completely unthought of reason.

Like during the earliest form of the game when teams would play on ponds etc they would switch sides so one team didn't have the sun in their eyes the whole game. Or maybe there's something far more advanced to it.

 

[Noldo]

Yet another answer which tells me why it is practical for NHL teams to do this today, but doesn't tell me why hockey is played like this. The professional version of the game =/= "The Game".

(yeah - I understand this is an NHL forum, but where else do I find people with hockey knowledge).

But the game emulates the professional version of the game and changes typically flow from the most prestigious leagues to lower level (nowadays potential rules, such as 3-on-3 overtime are tested in the AHL before they are implemented in the NHL).

Long change most likely originates from the times when hockey was not played indoors and therefore the it made sense to switch sides in order to mitigate differences in conditions (sunlight, wind, ice conditions). And at the professional level there has been no reason to change the practice (and many reasons to keep it as it is) so it has become part of the GAME - and emulated at all levels of hockey.

 

[SepticFish]

The long change hasn't always been a thing because until the late 80's a lot of arenas had benches on opposites sides of the ice. The penalty boxes were often both on the home side of the ice which would give the home team an advantage, so they made a rule that benches have to be on the same side. There's still some college teams with benches on opposite sides.

 

[Windy River]

Yet another answer which tells me why it is practical for NHL teams to do this today, but doesn't tell me why hockey is played like this. The professional version of the game =/= "The Game".

(yeah - I understand this is an NHL forum, but where else do I find people with hockey knowledge).

Sure NHL is not the same as lower leagues, but there’s alot of similarirites. There might be a bit less of the aforementioned things that make changing mid-game a pain, but a pain nonetheless it still is. Why go through that switching benches business- TWICE- during the game, when you can do it ZERO times instead, like how it is today??

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

The 'why do teams switch ends at all?' question is relatively straight forward.

Because teams are always looking for a competitive advantage and if you could do something to alter the ice at one end that you always play D in, versus the end that you always play offence in, teams would do it relentlessly.

In 95 Chris Osgood swept a bunch of snow into the middle of the ice right before Joe Nieuwendyk's penalty shot. Nieuwendyk skated with the puck, unbeknownst to him, into the ice shavings and promptly lost the puck. Teams would do things like this relentlessly.

Further, I guarantee you that home arenas would do things like make the rink imperceptibly smaller in one zone, or make it so that the ice was on a slight incline facing the defensive zone so that the other team was literally skating uphill.

Until the mid-90's the Bruins had an arena that was smaller than regulation and it fit their team's identity to a T. They were a team that took away room, and there was literally less room on their home ice.

 

[BurgoShark]

The last half-a-dozen or so replies are more what i was looking for. Some actual suggestions and info rather than just saying “because in the NHL…”

Thanks guys. Keep it coming.

 

[BurgoShark]

The long change hasn't always been a thing because until the late 80's a lot of arenas had benches on opposites sides of the ice. The penalty boxes were often both on the home side of the ice which would give the home team an advantage, so they made a rule that benches have to be on the same side. There's still some college teams with benches on opposite sides.

This is the sort of info I am interested in.

I wonder why they don’t do this now (benches on opposite sides of the ice). It would allow for switching ends without the long change.

I don’t “dislike” the long change. I am just interested to know whether it was a deliberate change to the game, or a bi-product of something else.

 

[BurgoShark]

But the game emulates the professional version of the game and changes typically flow from the most prestigious leagues to lower level (nowadays potential rules, such as 3-on-3 overtime are tested in the AHL before they are implemented in the NHL).

Long change most likely originates from the times when hockey was not played indoors and therefore the it made sense to switch sides in order to mitigate differences in conditions (sunlight, wind, ice conditions). And at the professional level there has been no reason to change the practice (and many reasons to keep it as it is) so it has become part of the GAME - and emulated at all levels of hockey.

The environment differences was what I had assumed too.

Note that several other sports are starting to deliberately modify how the game is played at junior/lower levels to make them LESS like the pro game. The idea that a junior game is the same game played by younger people is becoming quickly antiquated.

 

[BurgoShark]

Sure NHL is not the same as lower leagues, but there’s alot of similarirites. There might be a bit less of the aforementioned things that make changing mid-game a pain, but a pain nonetheless it still is. Why go through that switching benches business- TWICE- during the game, when you can do it ZERO times instead, like how it is today??

Why go through all of that long change business every 40-60 seconds for 20 minutes, instead of zero times instead, like it could be?

 

[Recipe Unlimited]

Yeah - but that’s a construction/logistical decision made by the NHL as a result of hockey teams swapping ends. It is not the reason for it. i.e. Swapping ends came first, so the arena was built to match.

Having a shared tunnel from locker rooms to playing field is the norm for most other sports. No reason why the arena would not accomodate it if hockey was setup that way. Most arenas outside the NHL likely still do.

This is not an exclusive thing to the NHL I'd say most, but not all arenas (including your regular community center hosting houseleague games) have dressing rooms on different sides for the home and away teams. Each team enters the ice from a different part of the rink. Hockey requires large change rooms due to all the equipment involved, so it's probably not convenient to layout the arena in a way that both teams enter the ice from the same entrance.

Why go through all of that long change business every 40-60 seconds for 20 minutes, instead of zero times instead, like it could be?

The long change causes no problems. In fact, it adds additional offence to the game during the second period, since it's harder to change.

 

[biturbo19]

Yet another answer which tells me why it is practical for NHL teams to do this today, but doesn't tell me why hockey is played like this. The professional version of the game =/= "The Game".

(yeah - I understand this is an NHL forum, but where else do I find people with hockey knowledge).

You don't think it'd be a huge hassle trying to marshal a bunch of little house league kids and all their water bottles and extra sticks and whatever else from bench to bench twice a game? Especially for no apparent reason. There's no appreciable benefit to what you're suggesting.


I think you're really discounting the "quality of ice" argument for switching ends as well. It may be an "indoor game" now. But trying to equalize the playing surface is probably even more of a factor at lower levels, smaller community arenas, etc. Almost every smaller rink i've ever played in has an area at one end or the other that's all jacked up in the corner because it's where the Zamboni enters/exits. Or some weird divots or ripples or bubbles or puddles or cracks somewhere. Or a net that doesn't anchor as well, or something weird in the crease. Or a better view of the scoreboard/clock. Visual tracking difference for the goaltender. etc. etc. You seem to be overestimating the quality level and consistency/uniformity of ice surfaces at smaller non-NHL rinks.


But more than that, the "long change" isn't a detrimental element at all as you're conveying it. It's actually a beneficial one. It helps promote offensive opportunities.

 

[Richard]

Some arena's had benches on each side of the ice with Penalty boxes on home side. That was more of an advantage ---- three dman for the visiting side stuck on the ice.

That and $$$$$ (losing a whole row of highly priced seats) led to NHL's uniformity

 

[Jerzey Devil]

I only played Midget B in New Jersey but I don’t recall switching benches. I think we stayed in the same bench most of the time.

Granted this was in New Jersey in the 90’s so tough hockey wasn’t much of anything back then.

 

[Evergreen]

Yet another answer which tells me why it is practical for NHL teams to do this today, but doesn't tell me why hockey is played like this. The professional version of the game =/= "The Game".

(yeah - I understand this is an NHL forum, but where else do I find people with hockey knowledge).

Imagine in the old days when people literally played on a pond with a couple of wooden benches set up along the banks of the pond. You and your teammates walk out to the pond with your skates, sticks and sweaters. You plop down your boots, snow shoes, or whatever else you've got and sit down on one of the benches to tie your skates. Players from the other team do the same on "their" bench. You start the game. At a certain point, you decide to switch ends of the ice due to the sun being in one team's eyes or the ice melting more on one side of the pond. Now you have a long change.

The tradition lastly until today, where it makes sense to continue because teams now have tons of equipment, water bottles, and technology on each bench and it wouldn't make sense to move it all between periods. Essentially it all comes down to having an area (your bench) where you keep all your stuff. Teams have always had water bottles, extra sticks, tape, etc. on their benches and they don't want to move their things. But it still makes sense to switch ends of the ice--even indoors--so fans get to see their home team shooting at each end at least once.

 

[JD1]

You see what I mean though, right? The decision to swap ends but not swap benches pre-dates big crowds, multimillion dollar salaries, coaches in suits, etc. The the NHL does these things NOW doesn’t explain why these things are part of hockey in the first place.

Either…
- the long change has always been part of the game, because someone “way back when thought” that it was important to have separate home and away benches, or

- the idea of not swapping benches was made by someone much later, and they either deliberately or inadvertently introduced the long change

I'm 35 years in to beer league. Swapped directions for 25 years. It stopped happening about 10 years ago I'd say. There's really no point in it for beer league.

It is necessary for the pros though. Several reasons including access to dressing rooms and fan experience

 

[Midnight Judges]

I think Torts showed us why that might be a bad idea for the NHL.

I think Torts showed us why it's a good idea.

That dude is a good show. Are you not entertained!