Basic Rules: NHL Hockey - A Visual Guide

During play, a player can pick up their stick as long as it is not broken. Broken sticks must be dropped without hesitation and left for officials to remove during a play stoppage.

When a stick is ok to play with, but has been left on the ice, it is often the result of a defender making the decision to leave it there and not take the time to recover it. If the action of picking up the stick ends up causing the other team to score a goal, I would imagine a coach would have some choice words for that player.

So, to recap; sticks can be picked up as long as they are not broken. Players may choose to leave a stick on the ice if it puts their team at a disadvantage.

No. Teams are never so severely punished no matter how bad the penalty committed. Players can be kicked out of games and suspended from future games, coaches as well as players can be fined.

The closest thing to a permenant man advantage at the end of a game would be a 5 or 10 minute major penalty committed with less time remaining on the game clock then the penalty is worth. For example, if a player commits a major boarding penalty and receives a 5 minute major penalty with less then 5 minutes left in the game, the officials would likely send the player to the dressing room, and for the rest of the game, that team would have to skate with one less player with no chance of replacing the missing player.

I have been unable to reply to the last 2 questions. I apologize.

Steve, minor penalties and major penalties are not supposed to influence one another when it comes to priority and goal scoring. Case in point, just this past weekend, my Washington Capitals played the Flames. During the game, Matt Hendricks for Washington got in a fight. As a result, he got a 5 minute major, but the refs found it necessary to also give him a 2 minute minor for roughing. Another player was tasked to fill in for his 2 minute minor. In the event that Calgary would have scored, the player sitting in the box for Hendricks' minor penalty would have been set free. Where as, Hendricks would have remained in the box for the rest of his 5 minute major.

Having said this, most sports are not a democracy, and players are at the mercy of the officials. As a fan, player and coach, I have seen many bad calls in every sport known to man. And the only solution I am given is to petition the call to the league after the game. Referees are given the rules by which the game is to be played, and they call the game as they see it. Refs make errors as do all of us, but during the game, there is little anyone can do to make up the mind of an official.

In the case of your team having been scored on during a 5 on 3, the oldest minor penalty should have been set free. There is only one other thing that I can think of ... my conclusions are based on NHL rules. There is always the off chance that the rules your league plays under may differ slightly. But I would have thought that this rule would be pretty similar.

On to question #2:

Pezlady, when a penalty is pending and the ref has his arm up, play will continue as normal until the puck ends up out of play or a player on the team that is about to have the penalty called on it "controls" the puck. During this time, goals can be scored for either team. It does not happen too often, but the team that committed a penalty can score, they just can't control the puck to do so.

In one case, Team A caused a minor penalty, so Team B pulled their goalie to put an extra forward on the ice. During the ensuing 6 on 5, someone from Team B passed the puck wildly and it inadvertently went into his own empty net. Team A was awarded the point, the ref then put the player from Team A in the box, and Team B went on the power play. It was pretty embarrassing for Team B, but that is always the risk you face with pulling your goalie to gain an advantage.

To be honest, this topic seems to have a gray area which leaves me guessing many times. Most often this is called "matching minors." In the case where a player trips another, and the tripped player retaliates, then they both will likely receive offsetting minor penalties. They both sit for 2 minutes, but neither team has to skate with only 4 players.

On the other hand, I have seen plays where an official has his hand up waiting for the offending team to control the puck. During this time, the team who can control the puck commits an unrelated minor penalty of it's own. As a result, both teams lost a player and skated 4 on 4 for 2 minutes.

Having been around hockey for so many years, I have concluded that these types of gray area calls always come down to who is officiating, and what they want to do. Any two officials at the NHL level can and will make calls differently. So, in all honesty, I have no good answer to this question. I have only found that if the two penalties that could cause a 4 on 4 were in some way related to each other, then both teams will skate 5 on 5.

In a word, yes. When two players are fighting, if any player leaves the team bench, that player is ejected. If a player that was already on the ice enters into the fight, they are penalized with a "third man in" penalty and will also be ejected. Basically, if two players are fighting, no one from either team is to interfere.

I have seen games where all 10 players on the ice were fighting, but each player had a single opponent. As a result, they all had to sit, but there were no ejections.

To prevent mass rioting on the ice, players are not to leave the bench and enter the field of play unless they are replacing teammates during play stoppages, or regular line changes.

I would have also thought a 4 on 4 goal would not allow players out of the box. Was it an NHL game or a different league? I would like to look into why (if it was NHL) the officials would do such a thing.

To me, the rules are very clear that while both teams skate at even strength (5v5, 4v4, 3v3), not caused by the goalie being pulled, any goals would not allow players to come out of the box.

I am curious to see what the official score sheet says happened.

Steve,

I was asking one of my sources to confirm or correct my answer posted to you, and we had our own small debate... clearly this rule is not quite as easy or straight forward as I initially thought.

So, with doubt, I consulted the NHL rule book to find the answer. Section 16 (Minor Penalties) not only explains that no matter the number of players ruled-off the ice to serve MINOR penalties, if both teams are at even strength, any goals by either team do not result in players leaving the box.

In this same section, on page 144 of the rule book, there is an example... please try to follow as I describe the table that is shown:

- Team A commits a double minor at 3:00 into the period.

- Team B commits a single minor at 3:30 into the same period.

- Team B scores a goal at 4:30. No one leaves the box. Official reason listed; "Teams are at equal strength."

- Team B scores a goal at 5:00. No one leaves the box. Official reason listed; "The first minor penalty to team A is complete but teams remain at equal strength."

...

There is more from this example, but we can clearly see that in the first goal, the NHL Rule Book states that the player can not come out of the box from either team because each team is skating an equal number of players. As you said, in your second post, it is not the NHL... but most leagues adopt NHL standard penalty rulings. Most of the rule changes are safety related (automatic icing). So, if you see this happen again, or want to set it right, it was Rule 16.2 with the help of the Minor Penalty Reference Table on page 144.

http://www.nhl.com/league/ext/rules/2010-2011_Rule...

Players get "kicked" out of a face-off for several reasons.

First off, most people do not know or realize that there is a process to all face-offs. As explained by the NHL Rule Book; Rule 76.3 - Procedure:

" ...

(i) One or both centers are not positioned for the face-off,

(ii) One or both centers refrain from placing their stick on the ice,

(iii) Any player has encroached into the face-off circle,

(iv) Any player makes physical contact with an opponent, or

(v) Any player who lines up for the face-off in an off-side position,

the Linesman shall have the offending center(s) replaced immediately prior to dropping the puck.

... "

These are the 5 typical procedural explanations for getting kicked out. Not to be condescending, it is better to just assume someone may need each of these explained in more understandable terms.

In case 1, both teams select a player to take the face-off. It is usually a Center, but teams are allowed to have other players try to win the face-off. Whom ever is to take the face-off, they must be squared from the opposing Center (player) and they both must be about a stick length apart.

Case 2; to indicate the player is ready, they must have the blade of their stick on the ice. Failure to do this quick enough (5 seconds from the official dropping the puck being ready is the rule... subject to officials mood as most rules are) can result in being kicked out of the face-off.

Case 3; as players try to jockey for position on the ice, if any player has entered the face-off circle before the puck is dropped, that team's Center will be asked to leave the face-off.

Case 4; technically, players are not supposed to touch each other before the puck is dropped. In the NHL, this is almost always violated with no consequence. But if the officials on the ice decide that contact between players should result in a player being kicked out of the face-off, this could easily be a reason.

Case 5; if players line up offsides and the official decides that they want to speed up the game or prevent players from stalling the game, this can also be a reason players will be tossed from the face-off.

In summary, officials can have people leave any face-off just because. This is especially easy to justify because some of the rules are always being violated such as the no contact case.

The big thing about getting kicked out of a face-off is that if a team has two players kicked from a face-off during the same face-off, that team will incur a 2 minute minor penalty for delay of game.

Happy to be helpful. I still field questions posted here.

Thank you :). It is hard these days to know exactly what hockey rules are any more. This season (2011-2012), there were some significant rules changes to "defenseless players" and boarding. If I get time soon, I will try to update my section on penalties.

Thank you. It is very true that even the officials interpret the rules differently. They also see offenses more or less severe then other officials.

With all the changes to the rules each year, this page is rapidly becoming out of date.

I really don't see any kind of booth review coming to hockey as we have in football. Yes there is a review, but it is usually only for goals. No coach can challenge a play. Hockey league officials have a similar mindset to baseball officials. Just a year or two ago, the Detroit Tigers pitcher Armando Galarraga pitched a perfect game. No walks, no hits, no nothing. For the whole game, not a single opposing batter made it safely to first base. As the game was coming to a close, it was the 9th inning, two outs, last batter, and the Tigers had the field. The perfect game was just a few strikes away from being over. The batter hit the ball short into the in-field. The scramble to get the ball to first was on. It was close... but not that close. Easy out. But just then, the first base umpire called the batter safe. This stunned anyone who watched the game in the stands, and on TV. The perfect game was ruined by a successful hit. Coaching staff and players argued the call. But since the official on the field has the last say, the call stood. After the game, ESPN and other networks slowed down the play and showed how not close the play really was. The first base umpire also watched the play again, and admitted that he was really wrong about the call. In his words, he claims he cost Armando Galarraga a perfect game. The game really should have been over with that out that was not called. Tigers won by getting the next batter out. But the perfect game was lost. The MLB league officials said they would never reverse the call of an umpire or game judging official since they (a) trust the calls on the field, and (b) don't want to have to revisit every call ever made after the game has been decided.

Now lets jump back to hockey. I just watched my Washington Capitals lose 2 games in a row. In both miserable games, a goal was scored that really should not have counted. In game 1 against Tampa Bay, the puck was brought in offsides, but the linesman was either at a bad angle and missed the call, or decided to let play continue for some reason. Seconds later, TB scores. Washington loses in overtime. It is always hard to say what would have happened had the rules been enforced. Would TB have gone cold, been demorilized, gotten more desperate, found a better way to put up points? The world will never know, but analysts on TV have looked at that goal as unfortunate since the play really was offsides. Should we have had Toronto or a booth overturn the goal? Even though I am a die-hard Capitals fan, I say no. The game is too dynamic to try to fix every missed call and missed opportunity.

In the second game where Washington lost, the Capitals were down 2-1 later in the game. A puck was redirected with what was believed to be a high stick. So Florida's goal making it 3-1 was disallowed. The referees huddle by the scores table to discuss it. After a few minutes, they decide to review it on video. As time ticks by, Toronto gets involved. Sadly, I could only hear this on the radio, since I was away from my TV, but the commentators are reviewing the goal and sharing what they see for us listening to the game. Both of them were conviced that the puck was redirected from above the cross bar of the goal. Despite Toronto and video review having such a good reputation to "right the wrong," the call was reversed and Florida was credited the goal. I have heard a few NHL commentators reflect that it was a bad call, but it was up to Washington to have had better control throughout the whole game to prevent this one bad call from putting them in a hole they could not crawl out from.

I guess that is why I am not such a big fan of booth reviews for everything. Sure, goals ... that is a big thing. Did the puck get kicked in, was it a high stick ...? Some things happen just too fast for a human referee to call correctly. But to start reviewing everything will disrupt the game enough to make it less about the players talents and lucky breaks, and more about the mechanical processes that could make the game more fair or accurate. I have lost many hockey games and soccer games where bad calls influenced the outcome. It has been my feeling that if we lost a game that close because of one event or maybe two, then we still have things to work on as a team and as individuals. Beat your opponent bad enough so that a bad call just can't effect the outcome. If a missed offsides call, resulting in a goal helps me lose in overtime, then I need to work harder to get an extra goal before the officials have time to mess up the game. It is almost like playing an outdoor game, and you always have an unpredictable weather event such as wind, rain, or snow that randomly makes the game unfair for a few minutes for one team. Or a chip in the ice that robs a shooter a goal by causing the puck to hop up and roll right as the shooter is about to take a shot. Refs are human, and make human judgment errors. I think if we allowed replay to get everything right for every game, we will find some variance in results, but overall, team win and loss averages would be about the same as they currently are trending.

I guess to illustrate this, lets take a team that is 24-10-2 without replaying everything that went wrong with officiating. Who is to say that a few of the wins earned really would have been losses, and some of the losses really would have been wins. Maybe we would see more wins from the overtime losses, or maybe we would see more of the overtime wins turn into overtime losses... We could never know what would have happened if all calls were right. So simply, letting the game stay imperfect with a faster flow not disrupted by replays may just be better for the game of hockey.

Now don't get me wrong. When I see calls that should have been called, like offsides not getting called leading to a goal against my team, I wish the refs had their eyes open more. But to take time to get more refs and video judges involved could slow flow, and reduce team momentum. I hate bad calls. But the way to beat bad calls is to beat the other team first. Then bad calls are just annoying, not heart breaking.

Funny. I played a game tonight where the refs probably wish no one knew their names. I can't tell you how many bad calls went both ways. I once thought about reffing... but I decided that it was not worth my time. I know as a player, I see certain things, but as a parent (home based reffing), I now understand how hard it is to make unbiased and fair calls when I only saw part of the "incident." If only I could get paid for my home based reffing.

Still, our refs did pretty good tonight. Other then the calls I swear they had their eyes closed for...

Thanks for reading Mike.

One thing that sets hockey apart from almost every other sport in the world is the dynamic line changes. Simply, this means people can come on and off the ice as play is still going.

Now the question you asked; why are there limitations imposed by officials?

Faceoffs: First off, home teams have an advantage. The away team is given a few seconds to make the first change. During this time, any and all players on the ice are allowed to change. The officials then indicate that the visiting team is no longer allowed to make changes as the home team is given a few extra seconds to make final adjustments. This way, the home team can try to get the matchups they want.

Now a team who tries to pull a fast one on the refs by stalling or getting people out late will be required to return players to the bench that the officials feel were too late. The worst that happens here is, a coach will see the players he just sent on come back to the bench and the player who lines up to take the faceoff will probably be tossed out and someone else will have to take the faceoff.

That takes us to icing. Icing is defined above... but basically, when a team is under pressure and they just want the puck away from their net, they have a tendency to just ice the puck. Historically, the worst that would happen would be a faceoff back in front of the goaltender of the team that just iced the puck. Coming out of the lockout a few years ago, the rules for icing changed. Now, not only does the faceoff come back in front of the goaltender of the guilty team, that team is also not allowed to make a line change. So, tired players are stuck on the ice until they can get another chance to change.

Towards the end of a game, tired teams have a tendency to ice the puck more. Coaches can tell when their teams need a break. Each team gets one timeout per game. Most teams that use their timeout will use it to help rest players during an icing call late in the game. Since the coach can't pull the players off the ice during the icing call, they can give the players a 30 second breather in hopes of surviving to a line change.

So basically, players can come on or off any time during play. Between plays, the home team always gets last change. And a team that ices the puck can't change until the puck is dropped again. Once play has resumed, that team can make changes again.

I guess there is one exception. If a player is injured and goes off the ice and goes directly to the dressing room, then sure, the coach can replace that player. But the remaining players on the ice can't change until play has resumed.

I hope that helps. :)

Becky,

Holding is very subjective. Most times, a referee will get holding right because most times there is holding called, it will be because someone already has the puck and is moving faster then the defense is ready to handle. As a result, the defense will "hold" the puck carrier. In your example, it would be much more subjective. Funny, your description of what seemed to be an obvious hold committed by your opponent happened to me in my last game a week ago. I was collecting the puck off the boards when an opposing player literally looped one of my arms with one of his, and wrapped his stick and other arm around my body. He came from behind me and pretty much interfered and/or held me from making a play.

When I went to the referee after, he said he did not make a call since he could not tell if I was the one who initiated the contact. I thought it would have been pretty obvious, but that was the explanation. I could see this being the same explanation in your example too. Sadly, I felt the call should have been made, and because of it, our 3-0 shutout was ruined.

I am not taking sides for or against the referee's non-call in your example. If the referee just did not see the hold for some reason, even standing that close, then he won't call it. If he sees two players trying to get position and he feels that both have proper positioning to get to the puck, he may have let them play to see who comes up with the puck. Maybe he would have had the same reasoning as the official in my game had by saying he just did not know who initiated the contact. If I had initiated contact in my example, I guess it would not have been holding or interference had I forced him to grab my arm and wrap me up. I can't see why I would have wanted to do this since I would have had the puck in the offensive zone with one defender between me and the goal. But hey, being a ref is not easy. They make some pretty bad calls sometimes.

I just hope the holding non-call in your game did not effect the end result. We still won our game, but our shutout was lost. Like I said in a previous post about officials and calls, hopefully they don't effect the outcome if the call was a bad one. But as for holding, it sounds like you had a good case for holding and it just was not called. Sorry.

To answer your question, yes and no ... How is that?

Just kidding. One thing I like about hockey is that players are held accountable for their actions. Now their fouls aren't always seen by a referee, or they are granted leniency. But to answer your questions, ... can a team have two players penalized at the same time? Yes.

I was watching an NHL game not too long ago where a team was playing 5 on 5, and one player interfered with someone on the other team. The ref put his arm up signaling that a penalty was coming. The team that was about to go on the power play retained possession of the puck, so play continued. As the team was setting up a in the neutral zone, a different player on the soon to be penalized team inadvertently got his stick up too high and clipped a player on the other team. Shortly after, play was stopped, and the referee went to the scorer's box and issued two penalties for the same team. One was interference, and the other, a high stick.

The other part of your question was; would a team have been given a choice to lose two players for two minutes, or one player for four? Teams are not given too many choices when it comes to penalties. There are two exceptions I can think of right off... and I am sure I can come up with more if I really tried. But the only times I really ever see the coach being asked what he wants to do about putting players in the penalty box are when the goalie commits the penalty, or if the penalty was "too many men on the ice." Goalies won't serve their own penalties. The only time a goalie will be removed from the net by officials would be if they got ejected. As for "too many men on the ice," this call is the result of more then one player being at fault. So which one sits? That is for the coach to decide. But no, the coach can't make a player sit longer to keep a different player from having to sit.

I guess just to illustrate more why I like hockey rules for player penalties, I want to compare hockey to football. In football, if a team commits multiple fouls during a play, the refs decide which was the worst and penalize the one player for his actions and decline the other fouls. I would like to see a team get hit for all the fouls they commit in a single play. Imagine a defense doing the following and being held accountable for each foul: Neutral zone infraction, roughing the passer, defensive holding, late hit out of bounds, pass interference, .... depending on where the pass interference happened, you could see 75 yards of penalties in one play. Too bad that would never happen.

Ellen:

I am curious what game, but regardless of what game and when, players' sticks are a very important part of the game as well as a very dangerous part. So to answer your question, not having seen the event occur (leaving me to speculate), I will briefly write about stick regulations in the NHL, followed by what I think happened.

A player must always have complete control of their stick. A six to eight foot shaft of wood or composite material can turn into both an intentional and unintentional weapon at any time during every game. Players can not make contact with opposing players above the shoulder or they will be penalized. There is one exception to this contact above the shoulder penalty. If a player is taking a shot, the follow-through of that stick will usually not be penalized if it makes contact or even draws blood from an opposing player's face, head, or neck.

Control of the stick also means a solid grip on it most of the time. Sure, players get their sticks knocked out of their hands all the time. One thing a player can never do is throw their stick to distract or interfere with the game. One of the most common times you see a player illegally throwing their stick would be during a fast break where the defender gets beat, and they feel that throwing their stick could help prevent a goal. This action is a penalty, and can result in a penalty shot.

There is a time that players must drop their stick. If at any time a player's stick breaks, that play must drop the stick no questions asked. Failure to do so is dangerous for all players on the ice. Broken sticks have sharp edges and must be discarded.

So, in the game in question, a player mysteriously put his stick on the ground and skated off the ice. My guess is that two things happened at the same time. The player was probably due to come off the ice soon, and his stick broke. By rule, he had to drop the stick. When a player must abandon his stick, he has two choices. He can choose to keep playing and try to aid the defense or he can choose to go back to the bench for a new stick. Sometimes, if that player's shift is over, it is better that the player just take a seat, and get a new stick from the safety of the bench. This last speculation is my guess. I think that his stick was broken at the end of his shift.

Unless a penalty happened about the same time, or a goal gets scored because a player is forced to drop his stick, these things are common enough that it will probably not be documented in game highlights, or post game analysis. I am curious what game it was, but I doubt unless it influenced the end result that it would even be mentioned.

A player or team can be penalized anywhere on the ice, or on the bench. In your example, the referee may have felt that there was not enough need to call the slash, or he just did not see it as a slash.

I was watching the Capitals ramp up to make the playoffs this year, and one of their last games there were so many times the refs should have called something but did not. To be fair to the officials, as that game went on, the refs also did not call Washington on all sorts of things too.

In a similar game, I was really frustrated that in the second to last game leading into the post season, there was no call on what could easily have been a goal tender interference call. And our goalie has been injured since (We are about to play game 2 of the first round).

I guess what I wish to say about calls and lack of calls is just this; a referee can call anything they want, where ever they want. As a fan, we are not privileged to know what a referee is thinking when he makes or does not make a call. We just hope that the controversial calls don't alter the game unfairly.

If by change the game you were watching was a recent playoff game, then I should also add this. During the playoffs, referees are either asked to make less calls, or be less of a factor in the game's result. Players are "allowed to play" which means that players can get away with more things they would not have been able to do or get away with during regular season games.

Yes. Goaltenders are replaced for bad performances mid game. It is not as common as pitching changes, but it happens enough. During the Philly vs Pit game last night (round 1, game 3, 2012 Eastern conference playoffs), Marc Andre Fleury, the goaltender for Pittsburgh was replaced with Brent Johnson as the Penguins entered the third period down by a few goals. In this case, it did not matter as the Flyers downed Pittsburgh 8-4, but it sometimes can turn a struggling team around, or give a struggling goaltender a break.

Usually, by the time a goalie gets pulled, it will already be too late for a team to rebound. Sometimes a coach may just want to get a goalie more live "practice" time if a game is too far out of reach.

To go back to pitching changes, in Baseball, a pitcher pulled cannot reenter a game to pitch. This is not the case for hockey goaltenders.

A goalie can get pulled, and put back in at any time later in the game. Washington goalie Semyon Varlamov replaced struggling Jose Theodor mid way through a game, only to struggle just as badly. At the start of the third period, coach Bruce Boudreau had Theodor back in net to finish the losing game.

William: in the NY Rangers game, there were 3 penalties called at 14:21 (or the clock read 5:39 remaining in the first period). You saw two Rangers go in the box, but on TV, they may have neglected to show that an Ottawa player was also put in the box.

14:21 NYR Brian Boyle : Roughing - 2 min

14:21 NYR Brandon Prust : Roughing - 2 min

14:21 OTT Jason Spezza : Roughing - 2 min

Two of the roughing minor penalties offset and would have resulted in a 5 on 5, however, NY also got an extra minor. This caused a 5 on 4, even though there were 3 players in the box.

Often times, if penalties offset, the teams won't be required to skate with less players. This generates a lot of confusion since many times, two calls will be made at the same time, but they won't be offseting, and teams will then play 4 on 4 for 2 minutes. In the game you asked about, I am guessing that was what you saw. And the TV crew failed to show and/or say that Ottawa was also penalized.

Justin: I am always glad to hear of new and new-ish fans. The sport really is fun to watch.

To answer the coaching question; yes they are easy to replace. I doubt they get payed millions of dollars per season as the players are paid. Also, GMs do try to make a change when players stop playing for or stop respecting a coach. Bruce was fired this year from Washington for that reason. McPhee explained that the players just weren't playing for him, so he wanted to put someone in charge that would get the team playing again. Every sport has expectations, and if the fans yell enough, or if the players stop playing, someone has to go. I liked Coach Boudreau and was really mad when he got fired. Still, the team moves on, and I keep watching.

Your second question about slumping stars is just as you guessed too. Players come into the NHL as unknown players. Ovechkin had less prestige and other teams did not know his dangerous speed, stick skills, and aggressive checking abilities until after he had played a few seasons. Players do slump on their own, but players such as Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin, and many other team stars just get figured out by coaches and players eventually. Boston in game 1 of the playoffs this year figured out how to keep Alex Ovechkin in check. About Fleury (Pittsburgh's Goalie), he has really had a difficult time stopping the Flyers' shots. Last year, Roberto Luongo of Vancouver had equal struggles. Goalies get beat up, and lose confidence, or they too get "figured out" by opposing teams.

In short, teams do figure out how to play better against veterans, and when teams get frustrated, coaches get fired. It is really pretty sad. I just take a breathe and say, "Well, I hope these changes help us win." I do hope OV can help bring a cup to Washington soon.

DLo:

There is no exact amount of time before or after a puck has been played, or could have been played by a player that would qualify him to be hit. If the hit comes too early or too late, then the call is most often Interference (2 min. minor). It is subjective.

I have seen a player get called for interference for checking a player who skated by the puck. As he was passing it, it looked like he had no intent to play the puck. But the check came, and the penalty was called. I am pretty sure I see that action happen EVERY game, but it never gets called.

So, there is an unspoken amount of time, and it varies between referees. It is usually pretty similar between refs.

New hockey fan:

All players are formed into "Lines" by their coach before the game starts. A line consists of a Center, Right Wing, Left Wing, Right Defenseman, and Left Defenseman. As a line jumps on the ice, the coach expects that line to change back on the bench in 45 to 60(ish) seconds. Some players seem to be out a lot more then others such as key play makers or defensemen.

Teams try to stick to lines as much as possible. Many times, goals take up most of a line's time. Even if a particular line has momentum, if the coach feels that it is time for a new line, they jump over the boards and take the face-off when play starts again.

In tonight's game 6 between Boston and Washington, most of the time, players who scored stayed on the ice. Some coaches like to leave players on to reward them for a hard won goal. But it is a gamble. If a tired line gets trapped on the ice against a fresh line, the worst that can happen would be that the tired line is held responsible for giving up a goal right after they scored a goal.

Basically, it comes down to what the coach feels will be best to get a win. If it means taking the risk with potentially tired players, then so be it.

Thomas:

Being a Washington fan, I wish Boston well in game 7 this week. Of course I want my team to win, but I must say, if Tim Thomas plays as well as he did in game 6, Boston will move on. I think he was 70% of the win against Washington. Very impressive to watch.

More about interference. A player with the puck is always a target that can receive a legal check. There is time just after the release of the puck from a passing or shooting player where the defense can hit them, even if he passes to himself. If the puck has been gone too long, then the hit, or rubbing out done by the defense could be considered interference. There is another rule to interference that should be taken into account in your "self pass" example.

A defender can not impede the progress of any player going to the puck to play it. So, in your example of a self pass entering the offensive zone (which is very common to see), if the defenseman holds on too long, or has to check the player a little late to slow them down in an attempt to prevent him from getting to the puck, that should be interference. It does not always get called. Most of the time, as one defender is trying to slow down the offensive player, his defensive partner will likely be going for the puck. When this happens, the offensive player going for the puck will not be granted as much consideration for being interfered with, since the scoring chance is now over. If there was no other player back to get the puck for the defense, and a defender held up the progress either too long or too late, that should get called. But as you said (as well as my other comments) all of these kinds of calls are subjective. If the ref does not want to make that call, it does not get made.

And no, there is no rule or allowance for defensemen to get away with more interference like actions then a wing or center. It may just be that defensmen are more likely in a position to try to stop players breaking for the net. Because of the frequency of defensemen doing this semi-legal interference, they seem to get away with it more often.

Justin:

You raise a very interesting and valid point. Just like all sports, teams have a historic and "trending" style or reputation. I grew up watching sports of all kinds... well, US sports of all kinds and looking back, I remember the Dallas Cowboys (NFL) were THE dynasty at the same time as the Chicago Bulls (NBA). Soft teams like Portland (NBA), hard hitting teams with most probable injuries to the opposition to Pittsburgh Steelers (NFL). Classy players, now there my mind tends to blank for almost all sports. Let me take a quote from Batman, The Dark Knight. "You die the hero, or live long enough the become the villain." What I mean by this is that I would pick a classy player, but the ones I would have picked have fallen somewhere, or somehow. I guess call me jaded, but I have long watched players as a fan, photographer, writer, and blogger to find that even my favorites are usually self absorbed. But who am I to judge. Put me in a public spotlight all day, every day. I am sure I would offend enough people also.

So back on topic. You are exactly right about players of reputation and/or infamy. Players such as Todd Bertuzzi will forever be booed in Denver for a career ending hit on an Avalanche player. Todd was suspended for his hit, but he still plays in Detroit. There are Great players such as Gretzky. I could list players from the hall of fame all day and why they were the best.

But I think what you are looking for is maybe a list of teams and specific players that you can associate reputations and expectations to.

I will admit this right now, I don't have the time to watch or follow every market team or every star that plays hockey. I am from the east, so my attention tends to favor teams my market plays against most often.

(EDIT)

Ok, so I just deleted maybe a books worth of text about each and every team. I figured it just was too much to read. So here are some basics to think of when looking at standings and player stats.

Good and Great Teams (current trends, and my opinion):

- Detroit, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia are Great

- Boston, Vancouver, Chicago, Washington, New York Rangers, San Jose

Clean play, Finesse teams:

- Buffalo, Carolina, New Jersey, Los Angelas, Tampa Bay

Dirty Play:

- Philadelphia, New York Rangers

Players to watch:

- Sidney Crosby - Great leadership and ice presence. Recent concussion problems have made it hard for him to play a solid game.

- Alex Ovechkin - Very physical play. Gives up when plays break down, but when they don't, he can really make defenders look like high school players trying to defend him.

- Sedin Twins - Henrik and Daniel play in Vancouver and lead the team in points almost every year. These twin brothers can almost read each other's minds.

- Martin Brodeur - Best goaltender I have ever seen play. But that was probably 15 years ago that I saw him play live. His mortality has come forward as he approaches 40 years old.

- Tim Thomas - Defending Stanley Cup Champion goaltender in Boston. He has some of the best reflexes in the NHL.

- Martin St. Louis - Fast, strong and smart offensive play in Tampa Bay. He lead the way to their championship run, and he plays just as well now as he did then.

- Shane Doan - A physical presence in Phoenix. He has had some struggles this year, but he should never be ignored on the ice.

- Jonathan Quick - LA Kings goaltender who lives up to his name.

- Roberto Luongo - The first goaltender captain I had ever heard of at the time. He was so respected and talented that his team wanted him in charge in the locker room and on the ice. Later removed from captain-ship, he has also found mortality. Still very strong in net, and hard to beat.

- Evgani Malkin - It is hard to be a star on a team of stars. But when Crosby went on the injured list after receiving what was thought could be a career ending concussion, Malkin stepped up to lead the team in points. With Crosby back, Malkin has not lost ice as the two of them shine together in Pittsburgh.

- Phil Kessel - Maybe Toronto fans may disagree with me, but as an outsider can be highly influenced by media and brand messaging, I have been lead to believe that Kessel is a sleeping giant ready to explode. He was an obvious choice for the All Star selection. But Toronto fell short of post season play this year. From what I have seen of Phil, he can find goals and opportunities many others wouldn't.

- Brian Miller - Buffalo's primary goaltender. He has had some great years. He makes protecting the net look easy.

- Mike Green - Best defense Washington has ever seen. He has a great shot from the blue line. Injuries have slowed him down this year.

- Ilya Kovalchuk - There are so many great players in New Jersey. Gionta, Sykora, Hedburg, and others really could be mentioned in this section. I would argue though, that most of these players are getting older. Kovalchuk has had a career better than many, and he has not been in the league very long.

- Steven Stamkos - 60 goals this year in Tampa Bay. He is a very clean player. I don't think I have ever seen him try to cause trouble on the ice. He will be one of the best.

- Henrik Lundquist - Goalie for the Rangers, he really has surprised me. He looks average. I really don't know how else to describe him. But on the ice, he really is hard to beat.

Like I said, I just made a list I could think of quickly. The list does favor the Eastern Conference quite a bit. That is where my eyes are most. But there are great power hitters in Detroit. Growing starts in LA, Nashville, and I am sure in every franchise. If you want to see who is trending with fans and coaches, look up the rosters that played in the All Star games for the past few years.

Most of the fan favorites will be clean-ish players. They will always be good.

The last thing I want to add to this lengthy reply is something about interpreted game changes in officiating but not rules per say. Penalties are hard to criticize from a fan's perspective. True fans have a bias towards their favorite team. I played in a game (non-checking league) where someone from my team rubbed out an opponent. There was a particular fan that yelled that my teammate should have been ejected for checking. Where as there was a similar rubbing out and subsequent non-call the other way, and that same fan sat approvingly saying "now that is hockey is played." I just illustrate that people will always see what they want.

But there are some rules that have been called more or less in years past then they get called in the NHL these days. Goaltender interference was one that was so diversely called by officials, that the league had to redefine what referees were looking for. What I think happened was that coaches were seeing ways to get around the rule. This exploit to the verbiage on paper in the rule book had to be reworded just to make sure such exploits could be avoided. Even now though, many fans think goaltender interference is not called consistently.

Another call that does not seem to get called as often as it could would be interference. The rule states in summary that any player that prevents a player from getting to and or making a play on a puck that does not already have possession of the puck has "interfered" with that player. Well, this happens in just about every game I have ever watched (and that is quite a few games).

One call that happens more then it should is high sticking. This is an odd one to pick on. But there are a some actors out there. Everyone hates seeing floppy players that drop to get the attention of officials. One of the most common things for any player to do when a stick hits them on the neck, head, or upper shoulder is to drop their stick, grab their face, and hit the ice. I have seen replays where a players stick missed an opposing player completely, but not by more then an inch or two. But the replay showed very clearly that there was air between the stick and the player. Still, the player dropped and the ref gave a penalty for high sticking. Now, the game is played in feet and meters. There is no way for every ref to

Justin (continued),

My comment got abridged somehow ... so I will try to wrap it up again.

...

Now, the game is played in feet and meters. There is no way for every ref to make every call right. I am glad they are overly eager to call high sticking, and not the other way around.

I hope this comment chain has help answer your questions.

Rjn111:

Refereeing is such a hard job. I have been a basketball, baseball, and soccer referee and I can say, even at an amateur level, the game moves too fast to always make the right calls. I may get on a specific ref or official when I think they blew a real obvious call. But I have learned a few things about missed calls, that I think the NHL officiating staff also realize. One, if a call gets missed, it can be called again later. This is also true the other way. If a call is made that should not have been, there will be close calls the other way to compensate for a bad call. I hear NFL commentators speak of this every season how the refs make a call to make up for a bad one earlier in the game.

The other thing I have learned that I am very sure NHL refs also know is that the only time a call really matters is when it influences the outcome of the game. All other calls really are not too significant. Causing a 4 on 4 is easy to call. You will find a referee will let a foul go if it is nearing the end of the game or if it would cause a 5 on 3. Referees don't want to decide games, but they have to call the obvious things and look for the judgment calls, and be the judge.

You have an interesting idea about the upstairs officials having an outlet to convey how they felt about a call or lack there of from the ice level. I am sure the transparency would resonate well with the feelings of fans. It would be challenging to be able to incorporate such a review or belated officiating system into the game. But still, very cool to think through.

You also mention the faceoff circle toss out rule.

NHL RULE #76.4 (Face-off) Procedure – Centers

...

If a player is ejected from the face-off, his replacement must come into position quickly or risk having the puck dropped by the Linesman without the player being set, or ejected from the face-off by the Linesman resulting in a bench minor penalty for delay of game for a second face-off violation during the same face-off.

...

I just thought I would look it up to see if it were still in the rule book. I don't recall now if I have really ever seen a minor called for a double face-off infraction by the same team, but there it is at the bottom of rule 76.4. I think linesmen make excuses for players all the time. I have seen a linesman toss a team's center. Then try to drop the puck. After another false start, he elects to talk to the player that replaced the center, but lets him not only stay in the game, but also stay in the face-off center. I am sure it may not be much different then a parent who really does not want to ground a teen for a poor choice, so he gives a second "final" warning.

Who knows. I imagine it is in the rules to just keep the game moving. I am sure they could lose the rule and find some other way to get people to behave at the face-off.

I will address fighting first. That is always a hot topic in hockey. Most leagues fine and suspend players that fight. The NHL has not stamped out fighting because of it's historic roots in the game. The team General Managers and NHL Commissioner get together every year and talk about how the sport effects their team, fans, and budgets. It seems that fighting comes up almost every year. The NHL keeps fighting every time. Some years, they come up with different penalties such as off ice fines. One year, they had in their TV contract that the fights would not be allowed to be televised. For what ever reasons they give each year, fighting is still in the game as a release of frustration.

Call consistency is what every sport wants. I don't think any sport plays games with a looming perception that the officials are going to favor a specific team. In most sports both national and international, if an official can be held on proof of bias and his or her calls reflect that bias, they are fired and sometimes fined. This has happened in the Olympics, NBA, FIFA, and the NHL would do the same. I don't like bad calls. But I don't like inconsistency more. I can take bad calls as long as bad calls are getting called both ways. But it does make me upset when the team I am supporting gets hit with a high stick with no call, and then gets called for a very minor that could not have been called. Bad calls and inconsistent calls will happen. That is the human element of sports officiating.

I had a college professor that introduced the grading scale for a test. When someone asked him about a curve and his policy on "arguing" questions for more points, he had a unique response that has stuck with me. My teacher pointed out that people never come to him when he accidentally gives too much credit or too many points when he makes an error in the student's favor. But you know they will be beating down his door for the 1 point he took away that the student should have had. His point was that people make mistakes both ways, and the result could even out over time. But we don't like being wronged, so we insist on the fix to our wrong but fail to fix it when it benefits us positively.

My point is, bad calls should even out as long as there is consistency. And in the lack of consistency, you should hope your team you are cheering for can run up the score before the officials can have a significant impact on the game.

Lastly, you mentioned having profesional analysts look at the fundamentals of the game. The funny thing is, most of the analysts are former hockey players and coachees. They grew up playing the game, and they will probably want to keep the game as it is. Hockey still has some what of a cult following. The United States is so saturated with sports that it is hard for less popular sports to gain ground. We have the NBA, NFL, MLB, and NCAA (Basketball and football). Hockey has always been considered a minority although it is gaining ground. Ask people if they follow MLS (soccer) in the US. I live in an MLS market. When we won the cup, the media outlet I work for literally said "oh crap, now we will have to cover more soccer." That made me sad that we would ignore a professional team because it was not as popular as our NBA team or our college teams. I am getting off topic.

The NHL is always under review to make good changes to the game. But the people looking at the game to make the changes are those that grew up playing it. There is very little outside interest on how the game is conducted. I am always trying to get more fans to games, or to watch the NHL on TV. This was my goal to explain the rules (above). I love hockey. I play hockey. My wife now is married to hockey (me), and my kids get excited about hockey. To see changes away from the historic and possibly out dated rules and trends, such as fighting, from a nontraditional hockey mindset, there will need to be more interest from outside the current professional NHL analysts.

But having said all this, I would classify myself as a player and I would favor how the game is played now. I don't condone fighting. I don't get excited to see people get up in each other's faces. But the game is pretty stable right now. Games are played, and the officials keep things under control. When players get too far over the line, the league suspends them. I may just add that the roots to hockey is a very violent native traditional game. Lacrosse is said to also be based on the same game. It was said that in Lacrosse, it was not unheard of for players to die.

Justin,

your question is not easy to answer. In hockey, we do have many specialized players. But none as highly paid as OV. I have seen many players sell out completely for a team. They play hard on D, and block shots. They will hurry to help the offensive rush, but be mindful to get back on D.

I think it has been a topic of concern in Washington and across the league when a failed offensive surge ends with Ovechkin gliding back onto the Defensive side of the ice. He has a lot of talent, there is no dispute there. I think what makes most analysts mad is that he seems to give up once the rush is over. I have seen him in the defensive zone. When he knows that the defense is either out of position or late coming back, he steps up and defends hard.

Ovechkin has a specific style of play that boarders on reckless. Is he worth $10 Million a year? I have not seen the Cup in Washington yet. As much as I want him to play harder, if he gets too far out of his position, then he won't be ready to break out of the defensive zone. I am not defending that he is less mindful of defense. Years ago, when he got his huge contract, people were not sure how to play against Alex. He was too big, and too explosive. In the past 2 years, teams have really figured out how to make him less of a factor. Also, he is the captain of the team. That is voted on by the players.

Alex Ovechkin is a bit one sided when it comes to hockey. But management knew that even when they agreed to pay him a lot. Fans loved him, especially before he got figured out. And players respected him and still do for his speed and heaving hitting. So what has changed? Not his style. Just our expectations. We want a cup. What is funny about the whole "one dimensional" play discussion is that most defenders are not criticized for not having an offensive mindset. I want to see Washington win, but I don't think getting all over Alex Ovechkin will make a win appear before us.

I have played hockey for so many years. I could never even come close to the skill Alex has. As a player and fan, I feel Ovechkin is getting beaten up in the media and by fans for no reason other then impatience. Micheal Jordan went to the Wizards and could not win a championship. He is arguably the most influential and possibly the best professional basketball player ever. So, what did people say just before he retired in Washington? Did people blame him? Now, it is a hard comparison to make, but I feel OV is playing hard. He is playing his game. I bet he hates losing as much as the fans hate watching a loss. No star athlete feels successful until they have a trophy to show for it.

I don't mind that Ovechkin is up front more then he is back. The gamble can pay off with high percentage chances to score.

First off, I just realized I called Miller "Brian Miller" in an earlier post... I don't know why... But thank you for mentioning him your post.

I don't think he wants to play defense. But I could only guess that. If it is true, then I can only guess why. Many defensive players get serious injuries blocking shots. I don't know. Someone needs to ask him.

I think defense before offensive is a better strategy, unless you were the Indianapolis Colts the year they won the Super Bowl. For every point their defense gave up, their offense would get back quickly. For every stop their defense made, the offense would still score. So, if you have a weak defense, you better have the best offense.

Don't get me wrong when I defend OV. I don't think his style of play is good for most teams. I don't even know if it right for Dale Hunter and the Capitals. I just argue that he has not changed. He has been the same Alex Ovechkin for as long as he has played hockey. He was celebrated for it a few years back. But now, he is seen as a liability for it. I stress, I don't know what team can really build around a player such as him, but it sucks that fans and management were completely behind him. And now it seems like no one wants to be. Before Backstrom got hurt this year, they were a very powerful duo. Because of Backstrom's ability to pass and get the puck to Alex, they were very hard to defend against.

I don't pretend to know what is best in Washington. I like OV now just like I did 6 years ago when Washington was the bottom of the NHL.

Justin,

I really don't know why OV either can't or won't play more defense. I would speculate that he has learned that how he plays brings him success. So I am guessing that what ever motivations he has, lack of defense has become his habit or style.

I would doubt that any coach anywhere (US, Canada, Russia, etc.) would ever train a player to ignore defense. I play in an amateur league now, and my team is always yelling at each other to play more defense. I am curious if Alex would even answer that question straight. When players are exposed for bad habits, sometimes they just deflect the question. After hearing some of his post game and post season interviews, he just says things like "we need to play better" or "We missed it." I am curious if any interviewer has ever asked him point blank about his defense or lack there of.

I guess looking back at this comment, I remember in all sports growing up, there were always "lazier" players that would cherry pick all day, and that was it. They were the ones at half court in basketball allowing a 5 on 4 down under basket. They were also the ones sitting on half field playing soccer. They would have a good chance to score when the goalie could clear it out to him. In hockey, he is an opportunist. I see him the same way as a cherry picker.

But a good cherry pick play catches the defense unaware sometimes and can lead to great scoring chances. The problem is, they leave the defense stranded down a man.

Justin,

just as you called it a conspiracy, it does seem to ring true to many fans. Would any official really be asked to make inaccurate calls to boost ratings? Maybe. Just imagine the fallout if that ever was made public, if it were true.

Phily beating the comeback of Sidney Crosby, and the all star roster of the Pittsburgh Penguins could easily be an argument that it is not credible conspiracy. I have seen games that made me think of these claims. But I guess I just don't want to believe in them. It would mean my passion for the game is based on a lie and a flawed system. It would mean I have put love and time into something fabricated.

I have heard the same fear from fans of the NFL, NBA, MLS, WWF/WWE/etc., and even NCAA sports. I believe it is an argument brought up when inconsistent calls are made. So people start asking how calls can be made against one team but the same offense went uncalled against the other. This question becomes a theory that there must be intent and bias towards the team that benefited from the apparently one-sided officiating. After watching enough of any sport, a viewer will undoubtedly find enough evidence to support this theory, making it fact in their mind, even if there is evidence to prove otherwise.

I don't want to spend too long talking about the ladder of inference. You should look it up. It is really a pretty interesting concept of how people take what they see around them and define their beliefs and their actions in accordance to this data. But in short, people come up with how they feel officiating is run based on what they have seen. And if a conclusion is formed before enough data can be collected, someone can jump to the wrong conclusion.

For me, I have seen enough games that I can understand the frustration with officiating, but I also don't agree that it is rigged by ratings hungry executives. Nor is it setup for teams to get more home games by extending a series to 7 games. I am sure the St. Louis market would love more money, but they are a single game away from getting swept out by LA. Last year, Washington got swept by Tampa Bay in the second round. Detroit, one of the most faithful markets to their team had to watch as Nashville eliminated them quickly this year. If there was a city in the country that could use revenue and marketing, it would have been Detroit. But they not only lost in the first round, but they lost quickly.

Each team only has one time out per game. I have never seen a team try to call a second. In NCAA Basketball, if a player tries to call a timeout after their last timeout, they get a technical foul. But I have never seen it in hockey. I will have to look into the rules. I bet the refs just remind the team they can't take a second and then drop the puck for play to continue.

Emily, a line is basically the group of players that play together. So the First Line, also known as the Top Line are your goal scorers and your players that may have been on the team the longest. The First Line usually will start a game, but they do not have to. The coach can have any line start, and can play the lines in any order.

First Line (Top Line), Second Line, Third Line, Fourth Line, Checking Line (usually Forth Line). Some teams have a Power Play Line, and a Penalty Kill Line. Basically, during the game, the coach just wants to be able to yell to his team, "Second Line, your next" and those players know that they will jump over the boards and onto the ice when the players on the ice start coming off the ice.

We hear about lines more from commentators and fans when significant players or strategies influence these lines. I am a Capitals fan, so I know that Alex Ovechkin is on the First Line. He usually plays with the same players on the Top Line, but this past year, while one of the best centers on the team was recovering, Coach Hunter tried the Second Line center and the Third Line center on the first line. That kind of thing.

Fans like to hear when the Checking Line is on the ice. It may even be fun to know who these guys are. The checking line in Washington scores a good percent of goals each season. They work hard, but their focus is to disrupt the playing style of opposing teams. They are out there trying to take advantage of mental mistakes from the other team. Lines really are for the coach to be able to yell who should be on the ice in as little words as possible.

Larisa, I was very happy to see LA win last night. They deserved the win after such a strong playoff run. And I totally agree that Johnathan Quick should receive MVP with 3 shutouts and a 16-4 record in the post season.

I wanted LA to win at home and treat their fans.

To your questions; a check is the physical use of force or an object to impede the play or progress of another player. For example, a check can be applied by a player running into another. This is the most typical type of check. So, when you see two players collide, and one player caused it on purpose, he "initiated" the check. Most are legal. However, if you recall the first period where LA's Rob Scuderi (#7) was checked from behind into the boards and ended up face down on the ice bleeding for a few minutes... that check was illegal. The call on the ice was "Boarding" and was assessed a 5 minute major penalty. During this time, LA scored 3 goals and really put the game away.

There are also other types of illegal checks such as cross checking, high sticking, and tripping. Stick checking and lifting other player's sticks are legal, but if you slash, hook, or use excessive force with your stick, you will get a penalty for it. Basically, a check can be as simple as poking someone or as violent as running into them and causing them to go flying through the air (which can be legal if done in accordance with NHL rules).

The question about when to get youth into hockey for the first time is up to the kid and parents. Many NHL players played Peewee hockey from 3 or 4 years old through high school. If you just want your kids to be good, or to have fun playing sports, then it is never too late to get involved in hockey. Adults pick up the sport a little slower, but they still pick it up just the same.

I would caution that if you get a child hooked on playing hockey, you may be committing yourself to an expensive sport. I will not sugar coat the cost. My gear cost me enough that I questioned playing recreationally year over year. My wife says I am happier the rest of the week after a game regardless of a win or loss. I guess I like the stress relief hockey gives me.

I taught a few friends how to ice skate and roller blade by putting a hockey stick in their hands and pulled them into pick-up games. When a new skater is focused on chasing the puck, and has a mild crutch to lean on for balance, the feet figure out how to stay under you. It is really easy to teach someone how to skate for the first time when they are not focused on falling, and you give them a task to chase something.

So in short, the sooner the better.

Larisa, price always varies based on age and equipment requirements. I would imagine peewee to cost a few hundred dollars as a minimum. You can often find second hand stores to provide gloves, skates and some of the basic pads. Kids grow out of pads so fast that it may be better to just buy them used at first.

New pads could run you anywhere from 500 to 1000, especially as your player gets older. My skates were $300, my stick I just replaced was $100. You will also need a chest pad, knee pads, helmet, elbow pads, gloves, and hockey pants. Adult pads could cost $1000 easy. I don't know the exact cost of youth pads as my children are not as enthusiastic as I am about hockey. I had to make the conscious choice not to force it. Sigh, I can dream of them in the NHL. But they each have their own hobbies and passions. At least, I have taught them how to play hockey. They know how to watch it.

About the dangers of hockey; every competative contact sport has opportunity for injury. Hockey allows checking in some leagues, but not all. I have yet to see a checking peewee league. I am sure there is one out there, but I have not actually seen one. I would recommend if a team does not require a full face cage, get one anyway. Teeth cost too much to replace as a kid. The dangers in youth hockey would likely be high sticks to the face or neck, stray pucks, blocked shots (which is how I have broken my foot), and inexperienced skaters accidentally hitting or skating into other players. I find that the pads make the game incredibly safe. I have taken shots off my mask, knees, feet, and other pads. As players start younger, they learn how to avoid danger better. I can't say there will be no risk, but I really think hockey is safer then football. Collisions do less damage to players then being dragged down in semi-defensless positions. Football is fine, but I really think hockey is safer.

Sure. Good luck. Who knows, maybe your son(s) could be the next hockey all star generation.

Chris, Girls can totally rock hockey. I play recreationally these days, and there are not too many girls, but they come out and play in our league just fine. This season, we have the wife of our team captain on defense, and she has been the most reliable in both positioning and physically challenging the on-coming pressure from our opponents. I watch every game I can find when it comes to watching hockey. I especially like NHL and International play. Sadly, for women's hockey, that usually means I just get the Olympics and the occasionally televised Women's World Championships.

Sure, they don't hit like players in the NHL do, but they do hit. They also don't skate at the same speed that the NHL is played at. But if that argument were truly a concern, how is it that NCAA men's basketball is popular? I like NCAA sports too, but anyone who argues that women's hockey of any kind at a semi-professional level is too slow, the I don't want to hear that person say they like any NCAA sport, for it is much slower then it's professional counter part.

A few years ago, my oldest daughter asked if she could learn to play hockey. I was really happy. Then she realized the puck could get her ... I tried to explain that she would have on pads, and that she would not feel too much of the impact. She however remembered that I broke my foot 3 times playing hockey by blocking shots. She does not want to play. She likes to watch it still. But I thought I had something going.

How do I feel about girls in hockey? I feel there are not enough leagues and teams fostering our young women. I would like to see a women's league that gets national attention. The state I live in has a few traveling women's leagues, but no one knows about them. I would like to see a WNHL, but that seems pretty far off. I totally support anyone anywhere who wants to play hockey. There should be no reason why anyone can't put a stick in their hand and play. Thank you Chris. I hope you stay with helping your boys and girls teams. Managing and coaching teams can be a thankless activity. But if just one becomes passionate about hockey, they can spread it to others.

Thank you for the link to the CWHL. I will have to keep an eye on that.

As for the "trick" question. I am not sure I am even reading the question right. You are looking for a %? What percent of the open net is needed to score? Well, I have seen goals scored in areas that were blocked by the goalie, or from behind the net, and from weird bounces... so I am sure I am missing the "trick" to your question. They only part of the goal that needs to be open to the puck is the part of the goal the puck is getting scored into it. Meaning, of all of the goal mouth (opening), they only part that needs to be open is the part just big enough for the puck to pass through.

I am sure that is not what you are looking for. I am curious to know your answer.

Your logic is dizzying. But if that makes sense to you, I can't argue your belief and your conclusions. Live long, and prosper, and may the force be with you.

RULE CHANGE 2012: This is a basic rule change from last year... and I am sure there will be more.

Rule 76, Handeling the puck- players who cover the puck with the intent to hide the puck from opposing players will be assessed a 2 minute minor penalty for delay of game. In addition, if the face off player pushes the puck with his hands to clear the face off circle, this will also be assessed a 2 minute minor penalty for delay of game.

(EDIT) In my last post, I mention rule 76. This post is in error. It is rule 67 that was altered.

Players are allowed to be in the crease, as well as play the puck in the crease. The only really big rule about crease violation is that a player can't interfere with the goaltender. The technical rules for goaltender interference are: (NHL RULEBOOK - Rule 69)

69.1 Interference on the Goalkeeper - This rule is based on the premise that an attacking player’s position, whether inside or outside the crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed. In other words, goals scored while attacking players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances be allowed. Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal; or (2) an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact. The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgment of the Referee(s), and not by means of video replay or review.

.

.

.

Justin, sorry about the long winded quote from the NHL Rulebook. In short, as it says towards the beginning of the quote, a goal can be allowed even if a player was standing in the crease. But it will be disallowed if that player caused the goaltender from being able to move freely.

On a side note, some other leagues have differing rules. Such as amateur leagues have a crease violation rule where any opposing player that enters the crease on his own power and not forced by the defense will cause a stoppage of play, and a resulting face-off out in the neutral zone.

This article along with nearly every comment up until March 2012 has been published for kindle and nook devices. I would love any support from readers who want to keep a copy digitally for themselves.

www.amazon.com/Basic-Rules-NHL-Hockey-ebook/dp/B007JXNALM/

Greatly appreciated.

Justin,

Welcome back. The shortened season is so young it is hard to comment on a new coach trying to get a team to adopt his system. Oates is one of the most talented capitals in franchise history. As a fan, I would love to see him be a brilliant coach as well.

OV has a very specific skill set. He hits hard, moves fast, and plays how he learned how to play. I have seen him try different things over the years. Coaches don't always know how to play him. Coaches often have a hard time playing someone on their roster. I don't think Ovechkin can't learn to play different. I don't think he has not played different. His high power, no hold back attitude is what got him noticed. That got shut down, and he slowed down. It would be hard for anyone to take their style that got them noticed and be forced to make it better. Isn't that what makes us human? The ability to adapt to trials, to try to make ourselves better. Sometimes this is harder then it looks. I am not even close enough to pro level to compare myself to even a bench player who spends most of the season in development leagues. But I know I have no room to judge someone else who can stick handle circles around almost every other player, out hit most other players, and shoot a puck from just about any angle and still make a goalie worry if they are going to stop his shot. Sure, he does not make headlines like in Phoenix where he scored on his back with the tip of his stick. Sure he has not had back to back 50 goal seasons for a few years. I still like to watch him score. He gets bad reviews because someone has compared him to other players. He still goes out and does not miss a game. He plays hard. I don't know anyone who likes to lose. I must respect him because I could not do any better. Is he worth what his team and fans are paying for him to be in Washington? I don't know. I am glad I don't have to answer that question with a paycheck. But as a fan, I still let my neighbors know when he and any other Capital scores a goal. I have wondered how many neighbors down can hear my yell when Washington scores.

Justin,

Opinion is hard to prove, disprove, believe, or disbelieve. You will either agree with me, or want to argue with me. The beautiful thing about opinions is that I can believe anything, and it should not matter to anyone else, and the inverse is true.

To be fair, and to answer your questions about my opinion, I think Bettman has a hard job. He has to tell hundreds of players and owners combined what the league is going to do, how it is going to protect agreements, contracts, safety, and other concerns that individuals and groups are going to have each year. If he makes one decision, one portion of the group will approve, and the other will disapprove. The opposite would be true if he decided in favor the other way. That example pretty much is only in binary (yes and no) type answers or problems. Now compound that with more "answers" then just Yes or No... now you have even more people not liking your answer, and even less supporting your stand on an issue.

Bettman has his belief of how the NHL would best prosper, earn money, draw in new fans, and develop future players. One choice could ruin countless hours of effort whereas sticking to a difficult decision now could create a positive culture in 5 years. I often compare management to parenting. Decisions are not always popular. And they are not always seen as "the right way" for something to be done. But someone must make that decision. Not all kids respect their parents. Not every player, coach, owner, and fan respect Bettman. But he is making harder then I have to make. I am glad it is not me. I can guarantee that I would have countless people mad at me if I were the commissioner of anything. I think hockey is still fun to watch. He is not doing bad. I do wish there was no lockout, but I blame the NHL and the NHLPA for that. All sides wanted to be paid fair according to what they believed would be fair. They also wanted to make sure a great many other things as well. So, Bettman, I am ok with him making hard choices and sticking with them. Fan growth is basically why there was a lockout to begin with.

On to #2; I would not be commissioner, ever. As I mentioned before, there are too many things to protect. So, lets say I make a choice to force salary cuts, or ticket price caps, or new rules to improve safety, or any other element of the game. As one element changes, it will affect some other area. Change in player pay will cause tickets to go up. Forcing tickets to go down in price will give owners less to pay for high powered players. Changing rules happen, but they are always years in debate with owners. But these tend to have the least amount of influence to team mechanics. However, referees tend to have a learning curve to adoption of how new rules are called.

But to give you as straight an answer as I can, I would change nothing without knowing more about what is happening under the hood of the league that I do not already know. The uninformed can always judge based on what they know. But we, the uninformed should always be ready to consider that we don't know enough. We can have our opinions, but they will always be missing something. They will always be flawed. Again, I am not envious of anyone who has to keep so many groups of people who don't want to work together happy.

I played a game last night where the officials did not know some of the rules. It was ok though since they put their whistles away, and just let us play. But still, there are enough grey areas in hockey at every level. It is funny to see how many people who know a lot but still do not know everything. I am included in that statement. Thanks for reading Steve.

I typically see a coach move players from one side to another, or one position to another to help that player or line get a spark. When that fails, often the player gets put back to the minors to build skills again.

OV switched from left to right as Oates has been moving lines around. OV and Backstrom were the dynamic duo for years. Now they are on different lines. Coaches make moves to see how team chemistry can be improved.

First off, Chicago is un-stoppable.

A team will always have the ability to put 3 players and a goalie on the ice, no matter how many players are sitting in the box. Every player from a given team can sit in the box at the same time and it would not change how many players can skate free. The trick to these situations is to understand how the clock works during such an occurrence. It once was (and there have been some rule changes to this in recent years causing confusion) that if more then 2 players from the same team were in the box serving penalties, only 2 of the penalty timers would reduce as the game was being played. This would result in the third player sitting in the box to have a longer penalty wait time, as he would not see any time reduce from his timer until the first penalty expired.

Player 1 gets 2 minutes at 15:00

Player 2 gets 2 minutes at 14:00

Player 3 gets 2 minutes at 13:30

Player 1 gets out at 13:00, Player 3 timer starts

Player 2 gets out at 12:00

Player 3 gets out at 11:00

Player 3 would have sat for 2:30 instead of 2:00 only because 2 penalty timers can run at the same time. I will have to confirm this, but that is what I remember. Just know, you can put more in the box then just 2.

Yes, he has to wait until play is stopped.

And your ironic prediction of getting beat first round of the post season is quite common for Presidents Trophy winners. There seems to be a curse with owning the best record.

It sounds like bad luck on your part. That would have been an ESPN worthy highlight. The one ref likely believed you had thrown your stick, which would have resulted in a minor penalty. I don't see why that would have been a penalty shot. But, that may just be the rules of your league. The hard part about being a ref is that you have to make the "best" call you can at real speed and in the moment. Instant replay would probably have shown your stick being knocked out of your hand inadvertently by the goal post. But the ref had to decide what he thought was right at that moment.

The bigger question is; so you stopped the initial goal. Did your goalie make the second save on the penalty shot?

That really is an unfortunate call against you.

Yes, if your stick breaks, you must drop it or be given a 2 minute minor penalty. If your stick is not broken, you can pick it back up. If a player knocks it out of your hands, if you drop it ... what ever the case may be. You are never allowed to throw your stick as a means to interfere with a play where you are too far away, or to try to prevent a scoring opportunity.

:) Thank you so much. I just love sharing my passion for hockey.

The rule is that a goalie is to be protected as much as possible. I know the helmet is required... If a ref does not call play dead, he is putting the goalie at risk. The glove is not as critical. I don't think I have seen play stopped for a glove. I would imagine the glove may be up to a ref if they feel like stopping play. But the helmet is a rule, and should have been stopped.

Offsides huh?

Well, as simply put as possible. The puck has to be over the blue line (offensive zone) before any offensive player. That really is the most simple explanation I can come up with. If the puck comes out of the zone, every one of the offensive players must clear the zone before the puck comes back in.

Now, I don't want to complicate the understanding of the rule, but there are a few acceptations. Such as a defending player bringing the puck in when offensive players are in the zone (no offsides). Also, if a player tries to keep the play onsides, but picks up his foot on the outside of the blue line (offsides).

I hope that helps...

I am pretty happy hockey is starting up again here in 2 days. It is good to have a full season again.

At the start of a season, each team can have between 20 and 23 players which include 2 goalies. Players get injured or perform below the needs of the team or coaching standards. Players that move down to the minor leagues or are injured can be replaced by other players pulled up from minor league farm teams or trades.

However, players (especially young or new players) are given a 9 game evaluation period early in the season. If these players dress for a 10th game, their first year contract starts which allows them to reach free agency sooner. Teams would then lose their farm players sooner if they are not careful.

The rules in the Collective Bargaining Agreement, which is how trades are governed, player contract allowances and restrictions are defined, and team salary caps among many other things, has many moving parts that change during each lockout. To be honest, I have not read up enough on all the stipulations from this last CBA negotiations about team trades to and from their farm teams.

All of this said, teams have the flexibility to pull up players in an "emergency situation" such as player injuries at any time. And a team can only dress 20 to 23 players.

Laura - Yes, you have it exactly right. Wins - Regulation Losses - Overtime/Shootout Losses. All teams are ordered in the standings based on a quick math formula based off of these three numbers.

Your example of 12-11-2 would be 26 points:

Wins are worth 2 points.

Regulation Losses are worth 0 points.

Losses in overtime or a shootout are worth 1 point.

Therefore, the teams standings points would be calculated as follows

[12(x2) + 11(x0) + 2(x1)] = [24 + 0 + 2] = 26 points.

There are ever changing tie breaker rules to determine placement in the standings where teams have the same number of points. But the basics of the points are above.

RJN - I agree that many of the safety inclusions into the rules (such as blind side hits, hits to the head, removing helmets during a fight, and stricter boarding fines ... among others) are really good for the game. Fans of the game love seeing good hits, unless it is at the expense of their favorite team's all star players. All too often, good players are targeted and are injured due to hits that really have no place in the game. Teams have invested financially in these players. Fans rally behind them too. It only hurts the game to see a temporarily "thrilling" hit which has the potential to end a player's ice hockey career.

About fighting; it is not likely to go away. The CBA and GM meetings have looked into removing fighting, raising fines, or imposing other penalties to on-ice fighting. It was decided that fighting was part of the traditional hockey foundations and would somehow negatively impact the game if it were to be removed completely. Seeing this, I don't believe fighting will ever go away... unless future league commissioners force the issue. On a side note, of all the fights I have seen, most have only issued superficial face bleeding and bruises. There was one exception this year where two players fell to the ice, and one (who removed his helmet) had to be rolled off the ice due to hitting his head on the ice when he fell.

The league realignment is still something I have mixed feelings towards. I want to see how the playoffs are influenced by the change. In the past, only 3 spots were reserved and the rest of the conference would fill in the remaining 5 spots. Now, with only 2 wild card spots, it seems like there will be a qualified team or two that are left out of the playoffs. I predict there will be eventual changes to the wildcard conditions.

I just removed about 2 paragraphs trying to defend teams that are centered around a single or multiple stars. Your logic is understandable. Balanced teams acting as a single entity should expect better results then teams focused on an individual. Such player centric teams should expect failure when their focus player is struggling. Teams like Washington should find ways to get other players and other lines to step up and help the team succeed. I don't think Washington is hopelessly lost and won't do well. They did just take 5 points from a 3 game California road trip against 3 of the highest scoring home teams in the NHL this year. And OV scored 1 goal in all of that. But I do get your logic, and I agree that balance is better.

They do look very strong.

Cross Checking is as you described. However, some penalties are subjective to the judgement of the referee. Pushing and body checking is legal. A cross check is dangerous, especially when the stick is near the neck or face of a player. Most cross checks get called when a player is being particularly dangerous towards another. Also, referees may let players get away with one or two, but too many in a row, and they will call it.

Still, the penalty is subject to how the referee wants to call it.

Jeff,

That is a great question. A passed puck that bounces wrong or icing that takes a bad bounce and gets directed towards the net does not always count as a shot on goal. Now, NHL players are skilled enough to aim shots off defenders and teammates' skates, backs, legs, pads... you name it. If a clear shot is not there, I have seen players try a pinball approach. It is up to the official at the scores' table to count actions like these as a shot or not. Accidental redirections may not be seen as a shot.

But one that gets me are the intentional "shots on goal" from a defender's own blue line as a clearing attempt. It goes the whole length of the ice to be easily blocked by the goalie on the other half of the ice. This is not a shot on goal, and is not counted as one. I believe it is not counted because it is technically a clearing attempt put on frame just to prevent icing. So the goalie must stop the puck. Sure, the shot would have gone in, and I have seen goalies mishandle such easy pucks in the past. As you said, intent does have some say when counting SOG as a stat.

Having said all this, I have not read anywhere that explains any of this. So it could be all opinion and contain no valid weight at all. But from I have heard and discussed with officials, and other analysts, SOG is a stat for goalie coaches and defense coaches. It is meant to give a team an idea how often they are back on their heals and allowing access to their goalies. Lucky bounces and clearing attempts are not real pressure on a defense or goalie, so it should not be weighed in on the stat. I hope this helped.

Thanks Mr decfcffcefk and Edafddbebdeg. People who wish to write comments to me directly are encouraged post mail to me directly. It will make it easier for people looking for answers to questions if this ever growing comment section remains reserved for the purpose of questions and answers. But still, I do appreciate the kind words of those that enjoy this Hub article.

Will,

I am not exactly sure I understand the scenario. So, let me rephrase using Player A, and Player B.

So, you want to know that if Player A has the puck, and Player B strips the puck away from Player A, is it tripping if:

1) Player A loses his stick and Player B trips on it?

2) Player B loses his stick and Player A trips on it?

or 3) Player A or B cause the other player to lose their own stick via a potential "holding the stick" infraction, which is directly the cause of the player who just lost their stick, to trip on that same stick?

If I missed a case that you wish to have answered, please reply. In cases 1 and 2, I don't think a referee would call a penalty for tripping since there was a play made on the puck. If anything, I could imagine a referee calling some sort of interference or holding penalty, but Player A being the player who just lost the puck would likely receive no penalties.

Having said that, if in case 3, Player A had the puck, and not only did Player B knock away the puck, but also caused Player A to lose his stick because Player B held it and pulled it from Player A, and then dropped it, causing Player A to trip, ... it is a stretch, but I could see a referee calling "Holding the Stick", and not tripping.

In summary, I would be surprised to see a tripping call in any scenario. I could see other penalties called in general. But there are many plays that are pretty close, and players drop sticks all the time, even if they are forced to by means of slashing, holding, and other means. Most of the time, as spectators, we see what we believe should have been a penalty, where referees seem to miss, or just plain ignore. And this brings me to a statement I have said in several other posts; a referee is human and will miss calls, or just want to let players play. If it would effect the game adversely, then hopefully, they will make the right call.

Courtney,

You should also try playing it :). It is so much more fun to be on the ice playing then watching. And I really do love watching.

Mike,

Yes. Play will not continue until both teams are ready. There are a few "delays" which have been employed by coaches in the past. But, if a delay is seen as a stall tactic to just allow tired players to catch their breath, the referee may award the delaying player a 2 minute minor for "delay of game."

Some things I have seen include a weak or fragile stick, goalie pads loosening or buckles need to be refastened. I have even seen a play request that a visor be replaced that has been cracked or need drying with a towel. I even saw one that got called, and I still disagree with the official (who awarded a delay of game for this next example). A player lined up to take the face-off. Tapping the ice with his stick, he felt that the stick was not strong. The referee insisted that there be no further delay. So the player tried proving that his stick needed to be replaced by breaking off the head of his stick in his bare hands. This really is not easy to do with an undamaged stick. Not impressed, the referee gave him 2 minutes in the penalty box for delaying the face-off longer. I imagine more was said before the penalty, which drove the referee to an emotional choice to penalize the player.

So in short, players are usually given time to replace gear during the stoppage. But they are not supposed to enter the bench to rest while waiting for the face-off to line up.

Laz, I am assuming that you mean standings point system and not goal scoring. I am going to explain standing points if that is ok.

NHL standings based on points earned by wins, ties, and losses. The winning team gets 2 points in the standings. The team that losses gets 0 points. However, it the loss comes only after the end of regulations, such as overtime or a shoot-out, then the team that lost would get 1 point in the standings.

A team's record is listed by Wins - Regulation Losses - Overtime Losses in this order. So if I look at the standings and see a team's record (15-3-8), I would know that this team has 15 wins, 3 losses where no overtime was needed, and 8 losses after the end of the 3rd period. A record of 15-3-8 would earn standings points as follows: (15 x 2) + (8 x 1) = 38 Points.

Now comes the fun part. If I am looking at the standings and I see more then one team with 38 points in the standings, how do I know which team should be ranked higher? There are a series of tie brakes rules to sort teams in the correct order. Every so often, the NHL publishes new rules. There are occasionally changes to how teams break ties in the standings.

The current standings tie break rules are as follows (Copy / Paste from NHL.com/standings:

"If two or more clubs are tied in points during the regular season, the standing of the clubs is determined in the following order: The fewer number of games played (i.e., superior points percentage).The greater number of games won, excluding games won in the Shootout. This figure is reflected in the ROW column. The greater number of points earned in games between the tied clubs. If two clubs are tied, and have not played an equal number of home games against each other, points earned in the first game played in the city that had the extra game shall not be included. If more than two clubs are tied, the higher percentage of available points earned in games among those clubs, and not including any "odd" games, shall be used to determine the standing. The greater differential between goals for and against for the entire regular season. NOTE: In standings a victory in a shootout counts as one goal for, while a shootout loss counts as one goal against. "

I would like to note that for Adult leagues and other non-NHL leagues have different standings points procedures. Such as 3 points for wins, 1 point for ties, and 0 points for regulation losses. Did this answer your question?