Hot Ice: NHL Thread

[ursus arctos]

It is worth noting that during the "storied Original Six" era of the NHL (from 1942 to 1966), only two of the six teams failed to qualify for the playoffs.

[Ray de Galles]

I see it as a problem for UK ice hockey. Unfortunately I don't see any easy solutions.

Playoff series work in the NHL, KHL, SHL, DEL and most big leagues. There are enough teams to make qualifying for post season playoffs a meaningful achievement. To win the Stanley Cup you need to win 16 games. In comparison, only 3 teams from this season missed out on the EIHL play-off quarter finals and the winner can take the title on the basis of 3 wins. May well happen that way this year as Cardiff lost their first leg against Sheffield but won the 2nd leg. They need to win the semi and then the final. If we had more teams and could have a genuine post season series of games then it would be great but right now we just don't have the numbers for that. There's also a major ask for arena teams to try to get ice time. Arenas will book acts for mid April onwards on the basis of there being a guarantee of no more hockey. UK arenas arent really set up to switch between hockey and a concert on successive nights and arenas will always chase revenue.

If we were to get rid of post season games from UK hockey then you run the risk of having dead rubber matches for the final 3 or 4 weekends of the season. That happens in football but there are usually European places to play for and the threat of relegation. In hockey dead rubber just isnt attractive to enough fans.

As for EIHL conferences, it's a topic that divides fans. It's always been seen as a sweetener for Fife and Dundee that they'd have more games against each other and against the other 2 Scottish sides as they were (before Edinburgh Capitals collapsed for good). The league also saw the option of more Nottingham v Sheffield games as being a major draw. Conferences could work but again it comes down to numbers. Fans don't like seeing the same teams again and again, particularly when we were in a conference with the Caps. You had all sorts of weird arguments justifying Belfast not being in with the Scottish teams (primarily seen as being an easier option for Belfast but at the cost of less attractive fixtures to sell to their fans) and the likes of Hull having to travel significant distances for "local" conference games. Longer term I think it could work but you'd need a better distribution of clubs. Minimum I'd want would be 2 conferences of 6 teams each. You could possibly go with 3 groups of 5 if the league ever grew to 15 teams but I don't want to see us going to really small conferences. I don't want to see the same side 4 times a season plus whatever away games I'm lucky enough to get to.

Thanks for all that. So on play-offs, your problem with the current EIHL system is the possibility of "fluking" a championship win over only four games? If so, that makes sense. I'm not sure Cardiff this season are a great example, sure they've lost one leg of a play-off quarter final (and a team could lose far more in a series of best of seven play-off rounds) but they were one game away from topping the league in the regular season so if they manage to win 75% of their play-off games surely they're worthy champions?

With regard to your comment on the risk of "dead rubber" matches in football, obviously that's far less of a problem below the English top flight as play-offs are an established part of the season for many levels below.

On the the subject of conferences, I might be misunderstanding you or we're talking at cross purposes. I thought the current situation was that everyone played each other an equal amount of times in the regular EIHL season but even then there are three conferences and I just can't see what they're there for. I don't like the conference system or asymmetric fixture lists in general transposed on to British sport (speedway has flirted with it) but that doesn't even seem to be the case in any meaningful way with the current EIHL.

Sorry if they're dumb questions or comments, it's just good to get some feedback from someone far more experienced and knowledgeable about the set up.

[BallochSonsFan]

It's really 2 separate titles.

Our main CHL spot goes to the league title winner at the end of the regular season. We have a 2nd spot for next season's CHL. Our continental cup spot will tend to go to the challenge cup winner. The play-off weekender therefore doesnt really carry the same weight as either the regular season or the challenge cup in terms of reward but it does attract a lot of attention within the domestic game. If Cardiff win then it's a sign that they're a good hockey team but in the grand scheme of things they haven't won the league title or the challenge cup as Belfast did the double. If they win the play-off weekender then they'll have the prestige of winning the UK top flight post season tournament but it doesnt really give them anything more than prestige.

I'm not against having a showcase final weekender. I just don't put any kind of value in it as a tournament. 8 teams from 10 (or recently 11) qualify and 3 wins takes you to the trophy. I'm not sure of any other top flight in hockey that has a domestic cup competition during its regular season. You generally play your regular season to qualify for your finals and then your post season to determine the champion. UK hockey sits apart from that set up due to our short play-off format and our extra domestic competition.

I'd actually quite like to see us use the finals weekender format as the conclusion of the challenge cup rather than an add on to the league. It could still provide the same semi/final format split over 2 days and would be a more satisfying conclusion for me - to win the challenge cup you'd need to win more games than you would to win the current weekender trophy.

Your point about conferences - its not really that we're at crossed purposes, its more that this season was an anomaly. Since the EIHL introduced conferences we've had 2 groups of 5 and then 3 groups of 4. In those formats we had a mismatched number of games. You played more games against conference rivals and less against teams from the other conference. The only reason that couldn't happen this year is because we had an uneven number of teams in each group. 11 teams in the league doesnt lend itself to a conference split. Very few teams actually put any kind of focus on the notional conference groups this year because it was such a mishmash. With MK dropping out from next season the league has the option of returning to 2 groups of 5 or moving to a single 10 team league. It'll be interesting to see if it keeps the league as a single 10 team competition. I'm not against conferences in principle but in practice I've seen the Clan trapped in a group with an Edinburgh Capitals team that regularly got rid of it's imports mid-season and would usually end the campaign playing late signing Europeans or journeymen lower league Brits. If we could have a set up where we had genuinely competitive conference games across a whole season then I wouldn't be against having an extra home/away game against local rivals. Unfortunately that problem with extra fixtures is compounded by the challenge cup being a group-based competition.

[Ray de Galles]

Ah, thanks again. I always thought the play-off title carried more weight so my mistake there.

I did wonder if this season was an anomaly with regard to conferences. It's only the second season I've really been able to follow it closer now Guildford are in it, prior to that it was only seeing the very occasional Cardiff game when I was back home. I hope the symmetrical fixture list stays.

[ursus arctos]

You may have been influenced by the NHL where the Stanley Cup is everything and no one remembers who won the President's Trophy for best regular season record.

[jefe]

Thank you Josh Bailey, that will do nicely.

[ursus arctos]

The barn was really rocking last night.

Remarkable comeback by CBJ as well.

[JVL]

Halifax Mooseheads have progressed to the semi-finals in the QMJHL playoffs for the first time in 5 years - they walloped Moncton 4-0 in the 2nd round and are now waiting to see whether they will face Rimouski or Cape Breton (which counts as a local derby, Sydney being just 400km away...). If they do draw the Screaming Eagles, those matches will be guaranteed sellouts, so am hoping that Rimouski prevail and that we'll be able to bag tickets for one of the matches.

[Hot Pepsi]

The NCAA final will be UMass v. Minnesota-Duluth, tomorrow, in Buffalo.

Defending champion Minnesota-Duluth won the first semi, 4-1 over Providence. It was closer than the score indicates. Duluth scored two empty net goals at the end.

In the other semi, UMass beat Denver 3-2 in OT. The game featured multiple five-minute majors and maybe should have had one more. This is, by far, UMass’’ best year since joining D1 in 1994. They’’’ve only had three winning seasons before and this is only the second time they’’ve made the NCAA tournament.

The top seed, St Cloud, got knocked out in the first round by AIC, which also had a break-out year.

[BallochSonsFan]

British born Scott Conway was playing for Providence.

With his NCAA career now finished, it'll be interesting to see if he tries to get a gig in the AHL/ECHL or if he considers coming back to the UK?

[Hot Pepsi]

Scott Conway had a great season for Penn State before being dismissed from the team without much comment. He then played juniors for a year before ending up at Providence. When a player gets kicked off the team and there’s no more story or rumors, it usually means he flunked his classes.

Duluth won 3-0.

UMass’ Cale Makar won the Hobey Baker and will probably be playing for the Avalanche in the playoffs by Tuesday. Hockey’s the only sport where that can happen.

[Snake Plissken]

You can tell that it’s the NHL playoffs. Khadri has done something stupid and is getting suspended.

[ursus arctos]

Barry Trotz has transformed jefe's boys

[Hot Pepsi]

The Bolts look headed for an historic choke. Oh well. Maybe it will trigger the front office to rethink what it takes to win in the playoffs.

[ursus arctos]

Palat scores to make it interesting

[Hot Pepsi]

It’s looking like it will be one of the great collapses in history. My nephew is upset. He feels personally persecuted by God to be living his formative sports-watching years in Tampa Bay. A bad NFL team, a pretty good baseball team that nobody watches and will likely move, and an NHL team that always chokes.

It just doesn’t make any sense. They never had a stretch of two games this bad all season, let alone three. They swept the season series with Columbus.

After scoring three in the first period of game one, they’ve scored two in the last eight periods.

Interesting to see what changes are made. They just renewed Cooper’s contract, so he’ll get at least another chance but they may ship out some of their offensive talent for more defense.

Sadly, it looks like playing like the Islanders, rather than attractive offense, is the way to win a cup. So they’ll have to do that. Sad for the sport, really, but I don’t see it ever changing.

[Hot Pepsi]

USA beats Finland in the WWC. Sort of. Finland got robbed, it seems.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.the...e-interference

[Ray de Galles]

In all of the Masters/Paris-Roubaix excitement yesterday I managed to miss the EIHL play-off final somehow. Cardiff beat Belfast 2-1.

[Muukalainen]

What's the rule on a penalty being enforced as opposed to being pending -- is it when the offending team touches the puck or do they have to have control of the puck? I'm pretty sure I've seen plenty of occasions where advantage under penalty has continued when, for example, the puck has ricocheted off an offending team player straight back to an opponent. This is what appears to me to have happened here. Although I cannot see clearly how the puck arrives to Nieminen after the penalty is signalled, I cannot see any evidence that USA have control of it. The referee is well positioned, signals first for the penalty (against Rigsby) and then the goal. At the moment I cannot see any reason to disallow it, so yeah, as things stand at the moment, we were robbed.

Getting as near as we did came as quite a surprise. The group stages saw Canada and, more particularly, the USA steamroller all before them, us included. We must have played out of our skins, first to defeat Canada in the semis, and then to push the USA to the limit in the final. The goalkeeping stats for those last two games make for sobering reading.

[ursus arctos]

From the IIHF Rule Book. Finland got hosed.

RULE 114 – DELAYED PENALTY CALL – PUCK CONTROL & GOALS i. For most penalties, a player from the offending team must be in control of the puck for game action to be stopped and the penalties assessed.
ii. A touch of the puck or glancing contact between stick and puck does not constitute control unless that contact results in a goal for the team being penalized.
iii. If the offending team is not in control of the puck, the referee will raise his arm signifying his intention to call a penalty, but he will not stop game action until: 1. The offending team has gained control of the puck; 2. The puck is frozen; 3. The puck goes out of play; 4. The team in control commits a foul of its own; 5. Either team ices the puck; 6. Other reasons specified by these rules.
iv. If the offending team is not in control of the puck but the team about to gain the man advantage intentionally refrains from playing the puck to let time run down on a penalty it has previously incurred, the referee will stop play.
v. If the team in control of the puck during a delayed-penalty situation scores into its own goal, the goal will be credited to the opposition, but the penalty will still be assessed. vi. The team being penalized during a delayed-penalty situation cannot score a goal by its own means.
vii. If more than one minor or bench-minor penalty is to be called and, after the referee has raised his arm, a goal is scored by the team in control of the puck, the goal will count and the referee will ask the captain of the penalized team which penalty will be cancelled.
viii. If the team being penalized is already short-handed and its opponent scores a goal during a delayed-penalty call, the earlier minor penalty being served is automatically terminated and all new penalties being signalled will be assessed.
ix. If there is a delayed penalty to a team for a minor or bench-minor penalty, and that team is already short-handed with a major or match penalty, and the opposition scores, the delayed penalty will be cancelled but the major or match penalty remains on the scoreclock.
x. If a team is assessed a penalty and scores a goal on the same play so quickly that the referee does not have time to blow his whistle before the puck enters the goal net, he can still nullify the goal and assess the penalty after stopping play.
xi. If, during a delayed penalty, the team in possession of the puck scores into its opponent’s goal, the minor penalty will be cancelled. If a double-minor penalty were to be assessed, one minor penalty is cancelled and the other imposed. If a major, misconduct, or match penalty were to be imposed, these will still be assessed even if a goal is scored. xii. If, during a delayed penalty, two or more minor penalties were to be assessed to more than one player and a goal is scored, the referee will ask the captain of the penalized team which penalty to cancel. The second and subsequent penalties will still be imposed. The order of the penalties assessed will not be taken into consideration.
xiii. If an attacking skater on a breakaway is fouled by an opponent to the degree that warrants a major and automatic game-misconduct SECTION 9 80 penalty, the penalties will be imposed on the opponent regardless if the penalty shot is successful or not.

p

It is especially unfortunate as the sport desperately needs challengers to the US/Canadian duopoly.

[Hot Pepsi]

I don’t think that rule is relevant, except for section X, perhaps.

The ref on the ice ruled it as tripping by the goalie but the video review judge determined it was goalie interference by the attacking player. The rule is that the video review can undo a goal (or a penalty I guess), but cannot add a penalty that was not called on the ice. So that’s why it was called a non-goal for interference but there was no subsequent interference penalty called.

In college hockey, twice this in the same weekend, I saw goals disallowed because replay (reviewed by a coach’s challenge) determined the scoring team had too many men on the ice. But there was no minor penalty assessed.

It creates a kind of paradox. I don’t know why the rule is that way. It seems that if the reviewing ref sees enough evidence of a penalty to overturn a goal, the offending team should serve that penalty too.


If the goalie is in the crease, and in this case they partly were, incidental contact can be ignored. But if they come out of the crease, they can’t be touched - at least that’s what it says, as I understand it.

Either way, this was more than incidental, but it seems it comes down to who “initiated “ contact. And it looks like they both did. The goalie was coming out to get the puck they misplayed and the attacker was just following through trying to play the puck and knocked it loose.

I’ve seen goalie interference called for a lot less, but then I’ve seen more contact allowed. It’s very inconsistent and hard to understand. Something hockey needs to clean-up and clarify internationally.

IIHF owes a full explanation.


It would have meant a lot more to Finland to win than the US. But Finland beat Canada and knows they should have won this game too. It will go down in their history as their 1972 Olympics Basketball.

[ursus arctos]

I think you are right, and was just responding to Muuk's question.

Goalie interference is probably the single most problematic rule issue in the game right now.

[Hot Pepsi]

Oh, sorry. Somehow I didn't see his post.

I understand the need to prevent goalies from being plowed-over. It's unsafe and unsporting. But goalie interference rulings, even after long video reviews, seem to be a complete coin-flip. In the NHL, at least they have a centralized video judge in Toronto. In college, the ref just goes into the little scorer's box area (and it's very cramped) and looks at a small video screen while all the fans are screaming at him. Every crew seems to have a different interpretation and each conference emphasizes different things. It's not a great system.

My understanding is that in this case, the IIHF had a video judge somewhere else who made the decision. I guess that's potentially less-biased than asking the same refs to second-guess the call they already made, especially if doing so is going to turn the home crowd against them.

This should have been a goal, even if by rule it wasn't. The rules should specify that if the goalie lunges out of the crease to cover a puck and runs into an opponent who is just trying to play the puck, that it isn't a penalty for either team, even if the goalie's skates are still in the crease. - Unless there's a high stick or the offensive player knocks it in with their hand or something else like that. I know they're trying to stop head-injuries, but that wasn't really a risk here nor is it in most instances of goalie-interference. It's particularly annoying in this case because the USA goalie had a chance to play the puck cleanly and botched it. It was their own fault that they had to be lunging out in the path of the attacker.

Or maybe just make the crease smaller and say that the offense cannot go in there at all ever unless they're pushed in, but for anything outside the crease, the goalie is essentially treated like any other player except that they're allowed to cover the puck with their glove.

Lacrosse is going through this same problem. In the 80s, a few players figured out how to score by jumping over the crease line, scoring and then landing in the crease after the ball was in the goal. By rule then, that was a goal. But then that got hard to judge - Did he land before the ball went in? Did he hit the goalie? So they got rid of it and the crease was made more or less inviolable. Then this year, they decided they wanted to bring that play back because fans like it and it's led to all kinds of confusing rulings whereby the ref has to judge the vector the attacker was on when they jumped and if it was at an oblique or acute angle to the goalie's vector, etc. It was better to just make it simple.

[ursus arctos]

Fine post, Reed.

Kadri has been suspended for the rest of the first round.

[ursus arctos]

Cale Makar has scored against his hometown Flames in his first NHL game.