CJ Boiss

7 hours ago, coopaloop1234 said:

Canada #1.

But it was strange to cancel the entire tournament over four asymptomatic cases.

Given what's happening in Alberta right now, not really. Today, we almost doubled our previous record for new daily cases of COVID with ~4,500, and Hinshaw said we're probably only finding 1 in every 6. Our positive testing rate is over 33%, and I saw one estimate put our actual new daily cases at over 20,000.

4 hours ago, ArdeFIN said:

From what I've heard they basically (speaking of Team Finland stories) lived in a hotel inside some sort of bubble, and while the hotel was (said by a player) about 50 meters away from Rogers Place, they still had to use the bus transit.

Team was healthy when arrived, had Corona tests every morning, and only facing the opponents(?) on ice and each other the rest of the time.

So there had to be very minimal chance for any kind of infection, if this bubble was intact.

If the staff was, and should've been, in the same bubble it doesn't make any difference using mask or whatnot. The Corona infection has to come from somewhere. You really think any of them coaches used the mask inside the locker room? And yes, that said half-assing the mask is as good as just leave it unused.

Lets see how things are in the spring when there should be mens WCS here in Finland. What variant is ruining the world then. Omikron probably is over by then.

There was no bubble. Yes, all the teams were trying to isolate in their hotel rooms and such, but there was no bubble that all the players and staff were in. The hotel with the American and Swedish teams hosted a wedding party.

1 hour ago, seagoal said:

I can see that.  Do you use it in the front in that little notch, I imagine?  So pull the trigger and then use that tool to pop it out?

 

It's supposed to be used in the back. Pull the trigger, wiggle that little tool into the rear, and the blade hinges out.

36 minutes ago, seagoal said:

Really?  Ok, I never had trouble getting them out with just my hand  before. 

Hot swapping mid-game can be difficulty; ice/snow/water on the blades, and such. Tool makes it easier.

1 hour ago, ilyazhito said:

Tell that to MAF. He wears a dangler, and I presume also a neck guard. Malcolm Subban also wears one, same for Jarry, Fleury's tandem partner Lankinen, and both Samsonov and Vaneček, just to list a few. 

What part of "lots of goalies" made you think I said "no goalies"?

4 hours ago, Lucky Pucker said:

Not to get into the whole debate here, but I don’t think the league will side with goalies on eye safety if they are using non-certified cat eye grills… but that’s only 2-3 of them, right…?

Lots of goalies don't wear danglers or neck guards either, but we still have rules against kicking pucks into the net.

21 minutes ago, seagoal said:

Fair enough.  For sure the safety issue is of concern and in all honestly it's probably going to take a goalie getting hit in the head or through the cage to the face for the league to look at this and decide if they need to do something about it. 

I've always thought about this since this conversation started years ago, but I think in terms of making an argument to ban the move, something to the effect of "it might hurt a goalie" or "it encourages sticks to swing at goalies' heads" is kind of a weak argument in the game of hockey, where....well.....yeah.  Us goalies accept danger as a precondition of playing.

I think the spectacular, unusual, rarity of this move is part of argument I am making to ban it: it's too un-hockey and it's uniqueness should be banned, not celebrated. Making that argument in a rules-bookish, rational way is what I have tried to do here, thanks in large part to your objections and counters.

We accept danger as a precondition of playing, yes, but "guys swinging sticks literally around our heads when they're behind us" still isn't a danger we should have to deal with.

Anyways, the "spectacular/unusual/rarity" argument could've been made to ban the Datsyuk and Forsberg dekes. Could be made to ban the Kucherov deke. Could be made to ban a lot of moves and plays that are iconic. Banning something because of its novelty seems far weaker, to me, than banning something because of its potential for danger.

30 minutes ago, seagoal said:

All totally fair points and they are appreciated.  This highlights the benefit of good faith arguments with point-counter points.

Here's what I said most recently with bold emphasis now: No player, other than a goaltender, is allowed to take possession of the puck off of the ice and proceed to play, including skating, shooting, or passing.  The puck must be freely moving on the ice or in the air at all times unless in possession by a goaltender.  

So the "off the ice" is the key part and that would take care of your objections regarding general possession and normal hockey stuff, such as shots, passes, flips, which all start with the puck on the ice.  And of course, as already mentioned, batting the puck out of the air is fine because it involves no possession, in the stationary sense, where the puck is no longer freely moving.  We already have rules that the puck must be moving and this new rule would just say that a player's blade can not be used in way that *attaches*, for lack of a better word right now, the puck to the blade and allows the player to maneuver it through the air.  

I totally see your point about the term "possession" being confusing and I would support use of another word that is not generally used in hockey, such as when a player or goalie has "possession of the puck" on the stick.  But the key in this type of normal possession on a stick is that the puck is on the ice and it is freely moving in a way that it is not *attached*.

I still don't like the idea of not allowing players to do anything with the puck if they lift it off the ice. Require them to be stationary, sure. Automatically disallow any goals if they contact the goalie's head with their stick while attempting a Michigan, definitely. But disallowing stuff like the Zegras pass? No sir. That was electric, an amazing play, and if guys can pull that off they fuckin' deserve to.

To me, this begins and ends as a goaltender safety issue. If guys keep trying the Michigan then someone, probably a goalie, is going to get a stick in the eye. Not allowing guys to skate with the puck in the air on their stick, and disincentivizing trying to tuck it top corner past the goalie's head, would solve that.

4 minutes ago, WillyGrips13 said:

On social media I saw this play juxtaposed next to a play from years ago that Datsyuk tried something similar. The difference was in the Datsyuk play it was still in the era where players actually played defense and both Datsyuk and his teammates had defenders on them. The defenders were marking their attackers and they prevented a shot from occurring. In the play from the other night, all defenders are staring at the puck and swiping at the puck while not physically marking attackers, which is how everyone “defends” today. No rule change needs to occur. Players need to return to marking players not space and this type of play never succeeds. Seeing plays from even ten years ago compared with today just highlights how bad defending has gotten in the modern game. 

The game is a lot faster than it used to be. Even the speediest defencemen will get burned if they try to play man-to-man all the time. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be more physical where time and space limits where an opponent can go, such as behind the net, but it's not as simple as "modern defence bad".

2 minutes ago, seagoal said:

Right, but he could have, and he did in fact take possession of the puck off of the ice. 

Yes, bingo, I do.  The rule should be something like: No player, other than a goaltender, is allowed to take possession off of the ice and proceed to play, including skating, shooting, or passing.  The puck must be freely moving on the ice or in the air at all times unless in possession by a goaltender.  

Breaking this rule would be at least a violation like icing or a penalty for delay of game. 

Zegras took possession of the puck off the ice in the same way as a guy flipping the puck 20ft over everyone's heads when clearing the puck to centre ice, only he flipped the puck 1ft over the net in a pass to Milano.

Possession of the puck in hockey is interpreted as literally touching the puck. Delayed penalty, and you push the puck with your stick? Possession, tweet, play ends. Puck in the air and you bat down to the ice? Possession, even if you don't ever have control of it. Disallowing players from passing, shooting, skating, or playing the puck when it isn't touching the ice would require, at a minimum, fundamentally changing how possession is called in hockey.

If you want to get more specific, and ban players from having "control" of the puck when it isn't touching the ice (and, again, "control" can be as simple as pushing the puck), then you're still creating a massive grey area around what is considered legal and illegal control of bouncing or mid-air pucks. Would Tkachuk's between-the-legs-goals be allowed, because the puck stays on his blade after it's left the ice for longer than it does during a slapshot? Would players not be allowed to "lift" the puck when they're clearing the zone, or trying to elevate it when in close to the net? Where's the line between a legal tip/deflection/redirection and an illegal one?

"players are not allowed to skate while the puck is resting on the blade of their stick"? Fine, that's clear, and easy for refs to interpret and call. What you're suggesting is anything but; stamping out one incredibly uncommon "problem" while creating dozens more that would happen literally every play.

1 minute ago, seagoal said:

No, because a saucer pass does not involve taking possession of the puck off of the ice and then proceeding to play.  Similarly, mid-air one timers (bats) do not involve this either so those are good, too.

The violation, as I would have it, in this recent play is the pass, not the shot.

Zegras didn't travel with the puck on his stick. He lifted the puck onto his blade and, in the same motion, lobbed it over the net. A saucer pass (or any shot which raises the puck off the ice, for that matter), does the same thing. Just more quickly.

Do you really want a rule that dictates how many seconds players are allowed to have the puck on their stick in mid-air?

Strangely prescient post from two years ago.

On 10/30/2019 at 12:22 AM, seagoal said:

Ok, but having the time to do it is not an argument to why they should be allowed to do it. They don't do it only because they have time (Ovechkin has a lot of time to take gigantic wind ups for his one timers from the circle), they do it because they haven't yet been told they can't.  It's currently a legit hockey move.  My argument is that it should not be legit move that is allowed, regardless of ability or time to do it. 

Good point on batting the puck.  But, there is no possession taken.  The time involved of a puck on the stick in batting the puck is equivalent to that of a slap shot or wrist shot.  My argument is fundamentally about taking possession of the puck (travelling) and I think this should not be allowed.  

Batting a puck in mid air does not violate my proposal for a rule change. 

7 minutes ago, seagoal said:

So this happened.  Pretty damn impressive. Now there are lacrosse passes, which I TOTALLY predicted.  So now what's next?  Rather than a mid-air one timer from a lacrosse pass we get a lacrosse pass reception and then a lacrosse slam dunk?  Maybe a mid-air lacrosse hand-off to play keep away?  My reaction still stands after seeing this: damn, that was amazing.  Ban it.

 

Now you want to ban... saucer passes?

Because that's what that was. Zegras was standing still, elevated the puck on a pass to Milano, who knocked the puck in before it touched the ice. Sure, he did a fancy bit of stickwork to get the puck over the net, but it's still a pass.

It's substantively different than carrying the puck on your stick, and then driving said puck/stick blade towards the goalie's head in an attempt to score. I'm all for creating some rules around those kinds of plays, in the interest of protecting the goalie, but this is just an unreal play. No reason to ban "passing the puck after lifting it off the ice with your stick".

2 hours ago, keeper_13 said:

@CJ Boiss You are totally correct.  KIDS!  Don't listen to me, listen to him!  For those of you who, like me, have internalized that whole "don't let the side down by admitting your body has crapped out on you," you probably still should listen to him, but my advice could be viewed as harm reduction, I guess.  I have to admit, even believing you are correct, I know I am going to play through injury again.

Do what I say, not what I do: I 100% played through a mild groin sprain for months (and ended up spraining the other side of my groin. It was also fairly mild. I got lucky). Honestly, as much as I hated being off the ice during COVID lockdowns, it gave my body some much needed time to heal all the little things I'd been ignoring or pushing through.

But, I have no interest in goaltending through an injury anymore. If I can skate out without aggravating anything then I'll do that, making sure my team knows I'm not 100% and how that's going to change my game, but I'm not going to make myself the last line of defence if I know I'm compromised.

My opinion? Don't play injured, and don't play if you've got equipment failure (broken mask/cage) that makes it unsafe.

If it's competitive hockey there's another goalie on the bench who can finish the game. You've got zero reason to push through or risk yourself.

If it's recreational hockey you're there to have a good time, not risk your long-term health over a game. You've got zero reason to push through or risk yourself.

I know we applaud guys who "fight through it" and shit, but that's typically reserved for a player finishing out the PK after blocking a bomb, or pushing through pain for the sake of the team. And there's a difference between pain and injury.

Pain is bruises, a puck riding up into your fingers, or finding your ribs past your chest protector. It hurts, maybe it leaves a mark, but everything is in one piece and you'll have full function of your body come tomorrow morning.

Injury is pulled or torn muscles, concussions, cracked and broken bones. Something broke and it's going to be a while before your body repairs itself.

Unless you're making bucks and pushing for a championship, unless you've got big league insurance to cover your recovery and rehab, don't play through injury. It isn't worth it.

12 minutes ago, CraigS said:

Tried the Lundy Loop today after a quick skate modification…RBZ 80’s don’t have a loop.  It is exactly what I needed! They played and felt great! All it took was a little Velcro, webbing material and super glue to make the skate ready for the loop!

It's amazing what a single elastic strap behind the heel of the skate does, eh?

On 11/23/2021 at 3:05 PM, Windmill save said:

Thanks

Shipping got delayed a week. Anyways, wearing it right now as I sit at home. First impression: it's quite comfortable, more so than I was expecting from a neckguard with a D3O insert. I'll update after my game tonight.

[EDIT] Update: I like the neckguard. I found it vaguely irritating between plays, but didn't notice it when the puck was in my end and I was focusing on the puck. That'll go away eventually, as I get used to the feeling. Otherwise, very comfortable. Didn't take any shots there but I know it'll be a damn sight better than the soft neckguard I was using. I'd feel pretty comfortable playing without a dangler, wearing that neckguard.

I went from a 35" G3 to a 36" G4. Took me ten or so skates before I figured out how to adjust the strapping in a way that felt comfortable.

With the G3s I strapped down to my calf, G4s I go behind the knee. Toe elastics and boot straps stayed the same tightness, and I run the boot strap behind my foot, through the Lundy loop; with my G3s, it kept my knee from falling off the top of the block, with my G4s it keeps my knee from falling off the bottom of the block. Calf wrap kept as loose as possible with both.

If you're familiar with Pro Lace ties, putting those on can't hurt if the stock toe elastics feel off.

I haven't noticed the knee blocks interfering with my skating, with either pad, but I did notice more contact between the tops of my thigh rises with the G4s (naturally, they're larger pads); that is just a "getting used to it" thing, provided the pad is sized correctly. If you don't want to adjust to it you can always go the drastic route of chopping the thigh rise down; personally, I'd just get a different kind of pad with less thigh rise.

No suspenders, and I don't tie the pants and chest together. Internal and external belt on the pants are kept tight, chest straps up snug around the ribs, and that's it.

1 hour ago, ThatCarGuy said:

Those are downright hideous but I would still like to own them. 

Only if they change their dogshit runners.

10 minutes ago, Windmill save said:

So aegis neck guard should be the way to go

Would anyone or you recommend anything else?

 

Well, if I get it in time to wear for my game tomorrow I'll let you know how it feels. But yeah, Kevlar and d3O is pretty much the tops in terms of cut and impact protection.

I wear a dangler to catch pucks, and a player neckguard for cut protection.

I hate the feeling of my chest protector interacting with the additional clavicle protection that goalie neckguards have; never had a puck slip past my dangler, and I've never had issues with my chest protector covering my clavicle, so I don't feel like I need it anyways.

I used to not wear any kind of neckguard, but then I had one clown blow through my crease at full speed when I was belly-down on the ice. The heel of his skate kicked up and the runner caught me full on the side of the neck. I got really lucky to not contact the blade.

Just bought an Aegis Interceptor, it should be delivered tomorrow.

5 hours ago, dretti33 said:

3rd game last night, 6-0 win, only face around 15 shots so not busy at all. Switched back to my old Bauer Supreme One90 Goalie pads and they felt way better than my CCM Premiers. I think its time I make a switch back to Bauer or something similar.

Also with a minute left guy took a slapshot from the faceoff dot right to the cage so got a little dent I gotta work out. Anyone else get really bad ear ringing from a direct shot?

No ringers since I started wearing a Coveted, and I've had pucks hit it from all angles.

10 minutes ago, Scythe said:

I will definitely have the dome foam on my beer list .. as long as I can get back to my room without falling down I'll be ok. 

Thanks for all the info. Coldest I've  ever been was in -9 on the tarmac of the Detroit airport .. I know I'm a  lightweight. What is chinooking? 

Warm, dry air coming down out of the Rockies. Melts/sublimates snow and ice, and it usually brings the temperature up to around 10^C.

1 minute ago, MTH said:

Nothing like a nice stroll in January in Calgary.

Nice knowing you.

If he's lucky it'll be chinooking.