ICE HOCKEY ARTICLES PUBLISHED ELSEWHERE

copyrighted, so please contact site for permission to use any part

Fair Means Or Foul

Last season while watching a hockey game from the raised seats in line with the goal line, I felt I was in an almost perfect position to determine whether or not the puck entirely crossed the line, so completing a goal in accordance with the rules.

When eventually a scramble occurred close in and the puck, at least from my position, clearly passed the line exposing ice, I wasn’t totally surprised when the netminder grabbed it, swept it back out to safety, and killed it. I hasten to add here no names are mentioned to protect the, um, innocent.

The goal judge did not signal because obviously they can only do so for goals they can see, and the ref was also unsighted by the tussle and didn’t signal either, but immediately stopped the game because, presumably, he considered the netminder had control of a still in-play puck. But then, several seconds after the event, the goal judge banged on the light. Interesting.

Now up to that point there was no goal simply because no official had witnessed one, but as you would expect the ref conferred with the goal judge, and subsequently overruled him – no goal, like it or not.

But here it gets surreal because the netminder who still had the puck firmly clamped to the ice was also consulted! First he exposed the puck under his glove for the ref to clearly see it was safe, albeit a tantalising inch or two from the line, but then repeatedly demonstrated how he had skilfully swept the puck to safety not from in the goal but actually from in front. For goodness sake. The guy had been given enough time to change, go home and make a cup of tea and return, redress, and retake his position, so not only was his opinion pointless, but as I am sure most people would believe, it should not have been sought in these circumstances.

Regardless of all this, and I am the first to admit the ref might have been merely asking the goalie about his recent holiday in Ibiza, but my point is how honest should a player be? The netminder knew it was a goal just as plainly as the closest players who, along with the group in which I was sitting, all responded noisely. But, as the goal was critical and the netminder under a teeny bit of pressure, does that justify the lie? Should he have put his hands up and declared, ‘Fair cop, guv’? Even had the ref not involved him, the lie was still standing, and most of the players involved proffered opinions too, which should also have not been allowed. Understandably, there was also an element of the spectators who were happy with the decision, lie or not.

Despite what I have said, I am not criticising ref, netminder, players or spectators so much as sporting society. Are we who love ice hockey now going the way of some other sports in that to win by fair means or foul is OK? The trouble with that is dishonesty eventually becomes a sneaky part of the game we all end up accepting. So roll on more technology like security cameras, for example, because they are cheap enough. That’s what I say, but for moral guidance please don’t bother searching my website.

Who’s A Big Boy, Then?

How do you measure the success or quality of a defensive player?

Firstly, I am not referring to the netminder who has a particular slot of his own, and the stats to go with it, so I mean The D-man.

Well, I suppose there are pointers like how many goals get let in when he is on the ice, how many times does he  get caught out by the quick rush or his back checking ability. In the ‘old days’ when ice hockey was more of a combat experience rather than just physical, by which I mean you kit these guys out, train them to work as a team and then give them a weapon, er, I mean, stick and aim them at the enemy all fired up, I suppose a measure of success could have been how many people he felled, or how many or the type of penalties he took. As an aside, certain players in the NHL are known as ‘enforcers’, a title that explains a lot so you can easily join the dots.

But there are also a couple of factors that could be used more formally like certain penalties which occur in defending or which take on a particular significance when they occur in the defensive zone but not elsewhere, and probably a few more. There are also existing stats which are recorded and which bear a direct relationship to the D-man, the obvious one being the power play kill percentage which, of course, means how many are prevented from being converted into goals.

Another existing stat which with a little modification would explain a lot more is the SOG – shots on goal, but just how many occur during a penalty killing period I have no idea, hence the comment about modification.

The NHL also has an interesting stat which is used as a matter of course on the gamesheet, but we don’t record, and may not take note of anywhere for all I know but which could be helpful in assessing a defender’s effectiveness. I mean the ‘Blocked Shots’.

I don’t suppose a great deal of explanation is needed but briefly an example would be when a defender sees the backswing being wound up by an opponent and instantly drops to the ice with the whole kit and caboodle in an attempt to arrest the incoming puck by whatever he can place in the way. There are coaches, and players for that matter, who disapprove of this because they believe the seconds the player is on the ice is dead time, and, of course, he just might get a mouthful of rubber and be out for the course. Others see it more as an effective play in that if you are about to possibly give away a goal any save is better than none, or at least go down fighting for that principle.

I can see both arguments, but it might be good to see such a critical tactic recorded.

A Ref Too Far

The NHL has used two referees on the ice for a few years now, and while British hockey has experimented the EPL still wait to follow suit but probably will do if and when the bank of officials and money is sufficient to accommodate the increase. The point is, though, it is currently being talked about again and while anything which produces more consistently accurate and fairer decisions should be welcome, I am not convinced a forth official on the ice is the best way forward.

To start with the field of vision of the referee moving forwards with the play is not improved. Of course his/her blind side is now covered to some extent by the second referee, but could be by a linesperson and either way the eye-level viewing point has not changed and is still restricted by the sheer number of bodies in such a small area including yet one more body on the ice getting in the way. A further drawback is ensuring consistency of decisions which, even with just one referee, can be contentious as any fan will attest.

So is there an alternative? Well, some time ago the NHL toyed with the idea of placing the goal judge in an elevated position at right angles to the goal line rather than behind, as at present. OK, so the NHL also has the benefit of fifty-six cameras directed solely at the goal and a panel of eighteen watching on closed circuit tv in Toronto, but a view along the goal line rather than behind and possibly obstructed by the netminder seems like a good idea. A bit like the linesman in football, I suppose. So, if the NHL considers an elevated view to the side of the rink gives a better view and presumably results in more accurate decisions, why not site that official centrally and make them a referee?

Several other factors come to mind in favour of this. Firstly, why do fans at any sporting venue more often than not prefer an elevated position, if available, and get charged more for the privilege which tends to suggest the sporting promoters agree? And, with this superior view how often do they vocalise when an infraction has occurred unseen by the ground-level officials? This has nothing to do with the standard of referring, but is a visibility matter.

Also, some other sports already use a remote official to some degree, such as cricket and rugby, and while not specifically calling the shots live, so to speak, it is an example of how a detached official can be utilised to ensure better decision-making.

In a nutshell, a grandstand referee strikes me as being better placed than a second ice referee, and certainly won’t be getting in the way. In fact, I think it would enhance the standard of refereeing whether a second one was ever used on the ice or not.

Alternatively, scrap the line officials, have two qualified referees with their responsibilities on the ice, and a third ref in the stands. And all for no increase in person-power.

FACING UP TO FACE-OFFS

All players who take face-offs want to win them, of course, regardless of any tactical gain, if for no other reason than to fulfil the competitor mentality, a psychological statement of a player/team’s aggression, power and ability, if you will. It’s a bit like when you toss the baby to someone without warning; they will try and catch it without even thinking.

So, face-offs, or ‘faces’ as they were originally called. These cameos are quite strictly controlled in their positioning, players’ stance and demeanour, team positioning and the official’s behaviour etc, so when the scenario build-up peaks and the one-second event itself takes place, clearly it is preferable to win.

Tactically, of course, they are overwhelmingly nearly all important and can often be a pivotal factor in a game, so it seems a bit odd they are not recorded on the gamesheet. Consider this comparison for a moment. A shot on goal will be recorded as such, presumably because it is considered important, informative, and a measure of some element of the game. Fair enough. But if a coach simply wedged the fattest netminder possible between the posts so that the puck could do no more than bounce off him because he just happened to be in the way, the stat would still be recorded. And just how informative and a measure of what would that be?

The point being, a face-off, perhaps in a precarious position which if won gives that side an advantage or possibly results in a shot or actual goal, will not be recorded despite being effectively an ‘assist’. It simply isn’t accorded any value or documentary importance. But in a sense face-offs are momentary power-plays, producing an advantage to one side from the instant they are won to the point where that advantage is lost which, of course, will vary in time considerably. So a face-off during a powerplay has immense potential for either side, albeit for different reasons.

Bearing this in mind, it can be interesting to follow not only just who or which side wins specific or most face-offs, but the pattern of winning if one should emerge, and to prove the information I observed a game between the Slough Jets and Swindon Wildcats. The first two periods produced almost an identical pattern with Jets winning face-offs at the ratio of two-to-one until at 8-4 the Wildcats then won four consecutively so that period one ended 8-8, and period two 8-9 in favour of Slough. Period three, however, was quite a different matter with the Wildcats winning at the ratio of three-to-one, ending the session 15-5 up with a final tally of face-offs won of Wildcats 31, Jets 22.

And what does this all mean? Haven’t a clue, because I only observed and recorded the phenomenon, but it seems to me if the details were entered onto the score sheet, particularly if they could be related to individual players or lines or scoring progression, it would be quite a useful tool to coaching staff.