Talk:Ice hockey

Archives
2003-06:1

Delete Heritage Classic?

I propose that the subsection on the Heritage Classic be deleted from the "Attendance Records" section of the article.

Reasons: 1) It's not the largest attended hockey game (the Michigan-Michigan State game is) 2) It's no longer the largest-attended NHL game (having been surpassed by the Sabres-Penguins Winter Classic) 3) It was not the first outdoor NHL game (the exhibition game between in the Kings and Rangers in 1991 in Las Vegas was) 4) The information about largest television audience is either flat-out wrong or out of date. The Red Wings-Blackhawks Winter Classic had a television audience of 4.4 million people on NBC, far surpassing the 2.7 million cited for the Heritage Classic

The Heritage Classic may be a notable and memorable game, but there have been many notable and memorable games in hockey history. However, the Heritage Classic is no longer a record-setting game of any sort, so it shouldn't be in the Attendance Records section.140.251.125.50 (talk) 23:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Matt

What about "Curling", official or most popular?

I keep reading and hearing the curling is the official or most popular. Can someone find out why there is this contention? Chivista 15:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Which country? Disinclination 09:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably Canada. Bogdan 02:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Curling is not more popular than ice hockey in Canada. Take it from me, a Canadian who is a fan of both sports. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Curling is popular in Canada, but no where near as popular as hockey.Killhammer (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Violence

What about the violence? --Robert Merkel 04:34 Jan 9, 2003 (UTC)

What about it? -- Zoe

The violence of hockey and North American football is an important topic, but probably inappropriate for this article. In both sports violence has increased as the amount of protective equipment worn has increased. In hockey requirements that all players wear helmets have led to increases in spinal and eye injuries, as players, thinking that they are better protected, no longer avoid hitting other players head first into the boards and carry the blades of their sticks up around their heads. In the United States eight to ten football players die each year, and head injuries are common. Violent head butting is common in tackling. The National Football League now has procedures for determining if a player has been concussed. Concussed players must leave the game and sit out the next. Ultimately there may have to be some reduction in the violence of these games. About a hundred years ago American football rules were made less violent because large numbers of players were dying. -- Anon.

Ummm, i dont think the guy was talking about the simple violence of the sport, but the act of fighting, which ice hockey is notable for, above and beyond all other sports. What about ice hockey causes the players to fight?

They fight because they're allowed to. It's commonly believed it helps players let off steam which might otherwise result in greater violence. The fighting is highly ritualistic as a result -- it's always one-on-one and ended as soon as one player gets the upper hand. Whether it actually is a release is questionable, but compare hockey to baseball, where fighting is not condoned but you end up with beanball contests and eventually with mass brawls in which the players do not pair off but gang up on single players. The NHL has done a good job of stamping out brawls over the past 20 years. And you don't see the spearing and kicking you see in European hockey. Jfitzg

I would agree, but the action of the NHL appears to imply that the fighting is okay. I think this is the source of the real controversy. In other sports, fights are usually much more severely punished (suspensions of multiple games, fines, etc.), while in hockey a player usually sits in the penalty box. It's certainly worth noting that part of the reason for the NHL's decision to allow fighting with such little penalty is because it attracts more fans. Fans of hockey appear to be more likely to enjoy violence than fans of football and baseball. It's probably worth a section in the article, or even its own separate article, to discuss the fighting in the sport, the reasons behind the NHL's stance, and some major opinions for and against it.

The NHL doesn't mind the fighting, nor does the AHL, the OHL, the WHL, heck, most of the North American leagues all allow it. The reason above, about letting off steam is mostly correct. Fights, or the threat of a fight, is also used to reign in violence. Take Edmonton in the 80s, with Gretzky. You can bet there were tons of opposing coaches wishing they could take gretzky out of the game, they only needed one of their defenseman take him out with a rough check, or a boarding. But they knew if they did, Edmonton would have their enforcers out next shift, pummeling whoever did the dirty work, and probably taking out the other teams star. Therefor, the threat of violence keeps most of the dangerous violence out of the game. The European Leagues have an immediate suspension rule, but they also have more players injured by spearing, etc. Therefor, it can be argued, that the North American approach is better, in that it is more honest, and provides a structured conflict resolution system.142.161.106.215 22:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The NHL now uses procedures similar to the NFL, although they apparently suspend players for shorter times. Jfitzg

Indeed, baseball violence is, in fact, ritualized as well—and though I’m sure there are examples, I cannot remember hearing of a baseball player becoming seriously injured after an on-field fight. —Swing, batter 20:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Fighting has been apart of hockey for decades, so it is not always easy to remove an aspect of a sport. And just a quick note about a previous statement, coaches did not want their players to go after Gretzky in the 80's because their owners wouldn't let them. Gretzky filled arenas, something that owners were much more interested in. There are actually cases where a player would hit Gretzky hard and then be sent back to the minors just afterwards as a form of "punishment." EZC195 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezc 195 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced statement

In the United States eight to ten football players die each year.

Do you have a source backing this statement up? I'm curious about this. I follow the sport closely and I am not familiar with this statistic. Funnyhat 23:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It could be a fact, if you include 40+ people in poor shape (like myself) suffering a heart failure while playing whatever with the kids or office mates. Hdw 13:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

While not a source, sports insurance is significantly higher for hockey and football players than any other sports, which shows at least that they are more likely to be seriously injured.

Haha If you think about it the fact says nothing about FORMER football players. I'm sure a bunch of old football player die every year. My grandpa was a football player he died last year. Change this "fact" Gavinthesavage 19:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

First off, you're chiming in on a year-old discussion. Secondly, yes, you're right; the fact says nothing about former football players. It also doesn't say anything about tea leaves, paper clips, the Wilmot Proviso or other such irrelevancies. RGTraynor 21:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I was merely pointing out that "FACTS" are subjective. I found it humorous, no need to be a dick...Gavinthesavage 20:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Fastest shot

An anon just changed 100km/h to 100mph for the speeds at which puck is shot. It appears 100mph can be reached but quite rarely. NHL All-Star game page records fastest times in All-Star "Hardest Shot" competitions [1]. About half of the years, the average of the best player in this competition is below 100mp/h. The absolute maximum, since 1990 is 105.2 mph by Al Iafrate in 1993 All-Star competition. Just for information, I am not changing anything in the article. Andris 08:35, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC) (comment edited 08:37, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC))

Contrary to popular belief, Iafrate does not own the hardest shot of all time. Shawn Heins of the Atlanta Thrashers holds the record for fastest/hardest recorded shot when he reached 106 mph at the 1999 UHL All-Star contest. Hockey Digest, Feb, 2003 confirms this. Just a bit of trivia. Yankees76 18:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Chad Kilger of the Toronto Maple Leafs beat Heins' and Iafrates' record-setting shots this year at the Leafs skills competition at the Air Canada Centre at over 106 mph. 130.15.194.231 21:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not extremely uncommon for a puck to travel at speeds approaching 100 mph and occasionally exceeding 100mph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.178.241 (talk) 03:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Three periods origin

Hockey differs from most sports by having an odd number of intervals. I have found references to when hockey changed from two to three periods, but not why. Does anyone have information on why hockey has three periods?

Because the ice requires resurfacing which in not a problem in soccer, football, baseball, or basketball. If hockey ever changes to 4 quarters, they had better flood the rink after every quarter or the ice will be a mess! Kevlar67 08:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

But the ice has not always been resurfaced between every period! It wasn't that long ago that in the NHL the ice was only done once a game. 142.59.153.99 07:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I came to this article with the same question. Yes, the ice needs to be resurfaced, but if this was the true reason, wouldn't 4 15-minute quarters allow for an extra resurfacing period, as well as 3 side-changes (to allow for each team to play on each side exactly half the game)? Very few other sports play 3 periods -- wrestling does so so that each wrestler is given choice of top, bottom, or neutral to begin a period, while the first is begun standing -- but hockey has no such decision making. There must be a logical reason for this. Were there originally 2 20-minute halves and the game was extended to an hour by adding a period (this seems likely)? 72.209.72.177 03:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure extra resurfacing would be nice, but then a game would take forever! You have to remember it takes about 10-15 minutes to clean the ice. So four quarter = 3 ice cleans = atleast 30-45 minutes of non-play, compared to 20-30 minutes of non-play. EZC195 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezc 195 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The "mother" of ICE HOCKEY is the english game BANDY.

The bandy match has always been played 2x45 minutes, just like its predecessor, soccer football. However, when the snow fell, tha match would be split into thirds of 30 minutes each to allow shovelling.

This goes on to this day in bandy if it is played outdoors. Maybe there was heavy snofall when the British Navy team introduced bandy to Nova Scotia?

Asbjørn

Popularity

Is the phrase: "Although it is the least watched of the four sports in the United States, it is the official national winter sport of Canada, where the game enjoys immense popularity (lacrosse is Canada's national summer sport)." necessary?

Should we add to the baseball section "Although it is the least watched of the four sports in Canada, it is the official national sport of the USA, where the game enjoys immense popularity"?

What relevance does this add?

It's information, I guess. But baseball is not the official national sport of the USA, as the USA does not have an official national sport, so we should not add that. --67.165.6.76 04:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

But baseball IS the national sport of the USA - even if not "officially". I believe that little tidbit of info is worth including on the "baseball" page, in the same way that the Canadian equivalent should be noted on the hockey page.--Vonbontee (talk) 05:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Number of Players

The text states:

Only six of the thirty NHL franchises are based in Canada, but Canadians outnumber Americans in the league by a ratio of almost four to one.

But elsewhere in the article it states: Canada 574,125 1.76% United States 485,017 0.16% With Canada only having aroudn 90,000 more players.

What is up with this?

Bearingbreaker92 | Talk 03:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Those figures are for two different things. The first (4:1 Canadians to Americans) is the ratio of players in the professional NHL. The second figures are for the total number of people in the country who play the sport - at all levels, not just professional. (And I'd point out that while Canada has only 90,000 more players, based on the percentage of the population who play the sport, there is over ten times the level of participation.) - Eron ^Talk 03:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Lack of popularity?

The attendance numbers don't add up to the NHL not being as popular as the NBA in the US. There are as many US NHL teams with 100% attendence as the NBA. Even in b-ball crazy NC, the Hurricanes draw 92% while the Charlotte Bobcats only draw 70%. [2] [3]Angry Aspie 04:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The attendance numbers aren't all of it, there are TV ratings to consider, and the NHL doesn't seem to have a clue when it comes to TV. --67.165.6.76 19:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Trying to counter North American bias

Of course English users contributing here are largely from USA and Canada, but we should try to make article more objective and also provide news about other major nations. Also, if NHL is clearly the most powerful league in the world, hockey played in North America is not hockey in general, so every info should be provided with always mentioning its local nature. In fact, from what I seem in recent times Canada and USA failed to win any important international competition, and strongest players are almost all from Europe, aren't they? Bye and good work. --Attilios 14:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree - "the strongest players" are most certainly not from Europe - in fact it's not even close. Currently, the best player in the world is Canadian as is the the top goaltender. At the time of writing 9 of the top 11 scoring leaders in the NHL are from Canada. No other country has more than 2 in the top 15. I think you'll have a hard time proving your statement to be anything but your own POV. Alo, I don't see how the article can be NA bias, when the majority of it discusses rules of the game, equipment, ice hockey in popular culture and history of the sport - which is all general information. Other users are more than welcome to add information from various countries, however I don't think removing info and re-arranging the article to better suit European hockey is the way to go. Yankees76

Sorry for getting you raging about that. I am not much into the today's matters: in fact I wrote: "I seem". I'll try to expose my point. An unbiased-article, simply, whould not contain a "History [of the sport]" section deling only with its history in North America, at least when it is fairly played outside. Hope you appreciated the sectioning I've introduced lately, with a stub about matters abroad. Didn't want to get engaged in any debate about who's stronger or lesser, oh my. But it is true is that Canada and USA have won far less gold medals than other countries in the sport's international tournaments. Good work. --Attilios 21:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Who's raging? Just pointing out some obvious stats that refute your blanket statement. It's also true that washed up Canadian and American players like Alexandre Daigle and Jeff Jillson are able to extend their careers on European club teams because the quality of competition is significantly much lower than it is in North America that they are able to still earn a living playing hockey, but that's beside the point. The history section of the article deals with hockey as a whole. The fact that the sport's first organized indoor game took place in 1875 in Montreal does not indicate North American bias - it's simply a fact. Perhaps a small section of the article may have a factual leaning towards North America, but to state the article itself is North American bias is simply not true. Yankees76 21:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

And just for fun to address your statement on my talk page and here that says In fact, from what I seem in recent times Canada and USA failed to win any important international competition. Actually, combined the two countries have won the 2002 Olympics, 2004 World Cup, 2003, 2004 World Championships, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 World Junior Championships, every single Women's gold medal at any competition, 2003, 2005, 2006 IIHF World U18 Championships and even the 2002, 2003 Spengler Cup - which isn't even a real international tournament. Contemplate on that. Yankees76 22:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Saying that the Americans and the Canadians are somehow lagging in the game is absurd. JHMM13  00:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree Canada usually performs well in international competition. The 2006 Olympics are one of the few exceptions.Killhammer (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Accuses of nonsense - Needing consensus

Very politely, User:Yankees76 abruptly reverted my attempt to counter US/CAN bias in the history article, saying it was nonsense. In what did consist that alleged "nonsense"? Simply trying to mention other countries in which the sport is popular outside North America, moving later details about NHL (so, which are intrinsecally local) which were put in the abstract (which instead should be the more general as possible), and specifying that the "Professional Era" regarded only North America situation. I seem that for him hockey abroad is something with the same importance of aborigens regarding satellite technology. My version can be found here. I'm waiting for opinions. I seem that what I tried was nothing offensive or reductive, and no material had been deleted. In the meantime, this article has gained a good US/globalize mark. --Attilios 21':41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because you removed sourced information to add an unsourced, incomplete list of countries where "hockey enjoys great popularity" [4], which was redundant as many of the same countries appear just a paragraph down (minus your "mountain regions of the Alpine"). I fail to see how this edit solves the problem of North American bias contained in the The Professional Era section - a section which you're more than welcome to edit to provide information on professional leagues from other countries. Additonally, I also removed the "Other Countries" addition to the Professional Era section because it was selectively POV on information that is discussed elsewhere in the article (and not including Germany, Belarus and Switzerland - while including Austria is puzzling), and contained incorrect information/POV such as "North American national teams were gradually replaced by European nations in their commanding role." - which unless you're talking about Mexico, is not factual. I also felt that your inclusion went over material that is well-covered in other sections of the article (see International competition). The Professional Era section should discuss professional hockey ( the history of Elite Leagues in Europe would be a good start), as opposed to discussing amateur international teams of the Soviets in the 60's. Thanks. Yankees76 21:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You're both right. Attilios, if you want to add sourced info on the Elite Leagues, please do so, we need more of that. But Yankees76 is right that making blanket statements like "X is better than Y" is POV. Kevlar67 04:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Erroneous information regarding puck speed

Hello

As an Australian I am not well placed to know too much about Ice Hockey, but I came across this whilst perusing the article (in the 'Equipment' section) :

"...The hard surfaces of the ice and boards, pucks flying at high speed (over 90,000 kilometers per hour (5000 mph) at times)...".

Sort of got my attention ! 90,000 kph equates to greater than Mach 72 if my calculations are correct !

I did not edit this because I have no idea what the correct figures are. This is my first time in a 'discussion' section so please bear with me if I have not approached this correctly. I wasn't sure how else to bring it to someone else's attention.

Peregrin Took 11:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.Yankees76 13:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Yankees76, for your response. I have done a fair bit of minor editing in the past, the point I was trying to make here was that I could see that this issue was incorrect, but as I had no decent way of knowing the correct information, I posted here in the hope that someone else would know and correct it. I was looking for feedback as to whether, under the circumstances, the approach I had taken was the most appropriate one. Peregrin Took 21:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The text in question looks like a case of sneaky vandalism, where at one point the information posted was most likely correct, but was then altered subtly so as to escape immediate detection. You best bet would be to either find the correct info online, or dig back through past versions of the page until you find the correct version and simply undo the vandalism. Yankees76 22:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

I am a member of the Ice Hockey WikiProject, but I'll try to review this article imparitally.

• "This concentration helps to make ice hockey the least watched major sport in the United States, though it is by far the most watched sport in Canada. Nonetheless, in certain major U.S. cities (notably Buffalo, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Minneapolis, Chicago, Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, Tampa and Denver) it commands popularity levels similar to and occasionally exceeding basketball for winter sports fans." Even though it is in the lead, this needs a cite because it can easily be taken as POV.
• "It should also be mentioned that Ice Hockey can be credited to black slaves from America. The underground railroad ran into Nova Scotia and in the early 1800s a black church started a few hockey teams. They used the bible as their rule book." Sloppy, unsourced and in my mind, unneeded.
• "In North America, the premier league is the NHL. For a more detailed account of Professional Hockey in North America, please see the main article, Professional Ice Hockey in North America" is sentence should be taken out and replaced with {{main|Professional Ice Hockey in North America}}
• The entire professional era section has no sources.
• A lot of sections have no sources whatsoever.

After reviewing the article, a lot of the prose needs clean up, and there are a lot of unsourced statements that need sources. So, I am going to have to fail this article for the time being. Thanks for your work on the article and with more clean up, it can some day be a GA. -- Scorpion 15:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

One of my goals is to bring this article to FA, or at least GA, so I'll iron out the article. I already rewrote and expanded the "The Professional Era" Section. This article is the most improtant of the WikiProject, so it needs to be much better than a B. The Evil Clown 16:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Images

To be honest, most of the images in this article is of poor quality. If the goal is to bring this article to FA someday I think we need some better photos. I have a little archive of images that I have taken during the swedish junior playoffs (U20 and U18). But before I make an large change in the article I wanted to see if anyone had any objections. And I was also thinking of if anyone have a request of an image that would fit this article since I'll be shoting (with a camera ;) ) again at a game tomorrow. --Krm500 01:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

By all means, do so. Could you attempt to capture a goaltender performing the typical butterfly-style save for the butterfly style article? Adding such an image to that article could improve it by a large factor. — Dorvaq (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I might have some images of goalies in butterfly position, but they are taken from the other side of the rink so the quality is not that good if I remember correctly. I'll see if I can get a closer shot at todays game. --Krm500 14:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you guys, images could be better, especially in the introduction. There would be few pictures that could be better for introduction, I think, like:

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4

So if the image should be replaced, which one of these would ya folks prefer? --TPG 18:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I only have 2 concerns with your picks. First, we currently have 2 Atlanta vs. Florida images in the article. Secondly, your picks are all NHL ones. If any pictures are to be replaced, I believe they should be NHL ones for other professional league pictures from around the world. This would give the article less of an NHL (or North American) penchant. — Dorvaq (talk) 20:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to add that I also agree with Dorvaq. The article is about ice hockey in general as a sport and not just about the NHL. Therefore the images need to reflect this rather than simply adding yet more NHL images. There are already enough images from NHL games in the article in my opinion.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 22:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to ask if these images are being used in other articles. Are they? — Dorvaq (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh right. At least image #3 is used in article Goal (ice hockey). Gameplay image of a match between Latvia and Sweden seems nice (1), but it's used in another section of this article. By the way here's one image of a player taking a shot in Swedish Elitserien: 1. And then this one from Finnish Mestis, but I think it's too wide and I'd prefer the Elitserien one: 1 --TPG 15:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The image is not from Elitserien, I took the image during game 1 of the 2007 Swedish U18 Finals between Färjestad and Frölunda. --Krm500 22:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. By the way category Deutsche Eishockey-Liga in Commons contains a lot of great pictures to use. 1 --TPG 12:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We can definitely add some of these pictures to various Ice Hockey related articles including this one. — Dorvaq (talk) 12:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Popularity

You left out a U.S. city very important to the sport of ice hockey's popularity in the United States. St. Louis is a city that has long been one of the top hockey towns in the country. This is a total non-bias view even though I'm from St. Louis. The recent slide of the Blues has hampered ticket sales and TV ratings but, that shouldn't describe the sports popularity. Any team that has a couple of losing season is going to suffer the same. St. Louis's youth and amature hockey leauges participation rivals that of other U.S. hockey towns. When the Blues first started out in 1967, they sold out every game. For the first 5 or 6 years, the Blues season ticket waiting list was comparible to the Green Bay Packers. I would just like mention of the popularity of the sport in St. Louis. (Joshmc1181 18:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joshmc1181 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

It's certainly worth mentioning in the Blues' own article. In terms of hockey history, though, St. Louis lags well behind other towns.  RGTraynor  19:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

And you 'll want to provide sources for those claims. ccwaters 19:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I kept removing the St. Louis entries I suspect you've been adding. We need sources for what's already there. — Dorvaq (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Periods in international play

I took out "In international play, the teams change ends for the second period, again for the third period, and again after ten minutes of the third period" - I can't recall such changes is the Olympic or IIHF games I've watched in the last 12 years. I hope it's not just early dementia from my part. evktalo 19:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not dementia from your part – nor was it complete mythomania from the original editor's. As I recall it, the rule was in effect back when ice hockey games were often played outdoors. That is, quite a number of decades ago, so it doesn't really belong in the main article. Good catch. -- Jao 23:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Separate "History of ice hockey" article

There's a separate article on this specific sub-subject -- should we move the content from the main article (which is getting a bit long) to the History of ice hockey page? --Skillymagee 18:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

More spelling

Going to correct the spelling of sieve. Camcurwood 16:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

inapropriate

external link on article at the bottom end--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 23:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Which one? If you are talking about any of the links in the external links section, all of those are fine. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Opening section

The opening paragraphs of this article are awful. Numbers are bolded for no apparent reason, and we have a comprehensive list of hockey leagues, which should be left out of the lead. There are way too many redlinks as well- every league is linked twice.-Wafulz (talk) 07:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I had been debating a revert cause it went from a really good article to a really bad one pretty fast. --Djsasso (talk) 07:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

ice hockey

who is your favorite team —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firebob36 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Using the short form hockey

The short form hockey is not only used frequently in North America, it is certainly used frequently in Sweden too, for example.

Ice Hockey born out of British Bandy

The game Bandy had been played for a number of years in Britain when a british navy team visited Canada in the 1800s. Bandy was a derivation of Football (soccer style) and Field Hockey, and was played 11-a-side.

The shortage of players in Canada led the match to be played by 7 each side, and thus Ice Hockey was born.

The British continued playing 11-a-side, a game that spread through Europe to Russia and back west to Scandinavia, where it remains a popular sport to this day. The sport died out in the rest of Europe during WWI.

The americans drew up rules of a 7-man game with waist-high walls, smaller ice, a puck and a longer, squarer stick than bandy. They also let the goalkeeper wear a stick and be called "goal tender".

The rest is history, but this important part should be included in the wikipedia article.

Asbjørn Karlberg, Norway - anordemk@online.no —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.191.25.178 (talk) 12:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This is actualy highly debated. In fact alot of people don't believe it came from bandy at all and rather from a game the natives in North America had been playing prior to the settlers arriving. -Djsasso (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Correction

Since I am new and obviously untrustworthy I am requesting that someone within the circle of trust make the following edit:

Under "GAME" the following sentence needs to be corrected:

" A player is said to shoot left if he holds his stick with the left hand on the bottom and the right hand on top, and is said to be right shot if he holds the stick with the right hand at the bottom and right hand on top."

It should read that the right handed shooter has his LEFT hand on top.

I may not be trustworthy but I beleive I don't need to argue that people only have one left and one right hand.

--Sjvmi87 (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that mistake. Flibirigit (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of...I found this whole section odd and inaccurate. According to "The Stick" by Bruce Dowbiggin, statistics kept by Easton and Sherwood show a marked difference between how Canadians and Americans hold the hockey stick. While 70% of stick sales in Canada are left, 70 % of stick sales in the US are right.

24.87.79.60 (talk) 08:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)equally new and untrustworthy

Edit request

If the first professional hockey team was established in Michigan, how were there individual professionals before then? And if there were individual professionals, they were not only Canadian professionals. I propose to remove the statement "(although there had been individual professionals in Canada before this)". This is superfluous, uncited, and not preperly inclusive. 70.128.104.143 (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There were no official pro teams back then. There were however players who were paid under the table to play for amateur teams. This sort of back room shady business was common in amateur hockey leagues in Canada at the time. -Djsasso (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Then that needs to be in the article with a source and made clear that they were unofficial professionals. The statement is just confusing the way it is now. Also, what source says this was not also happening in the U.S? 70.128.104.143 (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Where in that sentence does it say that it wasn't happening in the US? It very well could have also been happening in the US, though there were almost no American hockey players at the time. American hockey players were extremely rare until the later part of the 20th century. But that isn't the point, the sentance seems clear to me and does't preclude it from also having happened in the US. -Djsasso (talk) 21:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

And the fact that they were paid under the table doesn't make them unofficial professionals. They were professional as they were being paid. The team itself however could be called into question. But being that this is just a brief overview of things on this page and that there is an entire different page for professional hockey, it would be add bloat to this article to have to go into that much detail here. -Djsasso (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There were professionals in Pittsburgh prior to 1904. See Hod Stuart. The Pittsburgh professionals played the Michigan professionals in a 'US championship' prior to the IHL founding. I do not know whether all of the Pittsburgh players were paid, but Stuart moved there from Montreal and was paid. I think this indicates the nature of the time. We don't know the disposition of all of the players, but we do know that some were being paid. Alaney2k (talk) 21:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I don't doubt there were Americans being paid somewhere, I just meant that it would have been excedingly rare. That being said, your example moved from Montreal which would mean he was Canadian. But yeah due to the nature of the time we will never know exactly how that stuff was going down. -Djsasso (talk) 22:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Delayed Penalty

What is going on with this paragraph? Is there some sort of misunderstanding? For as long as I can remember, if there is a goal, the player who would be given a penalty does not go to the box. Alaney2k (talk) 13:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The player doesn't go in the box, but the penalty is still assessed, which means the penalty is recorded on the player's stat sheet. — Dorvaq (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

People are changing the text because it implies that the player still serves the penalty. This should be addressed, and then we can stop this back and forth lame edit war going on. Alaney2k (talk) 14:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't really noticed the edit-warring regarding the paragraph, but by all means, go ahead an change it to how you think the paragraph should read. — Dorvaq (talk) 14:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't noticed any edit warring either. I just changed it back once. I don't feel it implies anything, the penalty is still called so its factually correct. -Djsasso (talk) 14:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, more like a 'edit skirmish' or 'edit argument'... It then got changed a few more times. Not a big deal. Let's just get it right. Alaney2k (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, doesn't matter to me how it reads as long as its clear the penalty still happens but the player doesn't go to the box. -Djsasso (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Alaney2k (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ice hockey in popular culture

Ok... this section is becoming excessively long. I really don't care about, nor do I believe, every movie with ice hockey as part of the plot should be listed here. I propose one of 2 options; either we trim the section down by quite a bit or we split it into its own article. I'm tending towards splitting myself, but only because I'm lazy as cutting the section down is what we should actually do. — Dorvaq (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It seems really really really secondary to the topic. A list article could hold the contents or at least most of the contents. The section could be cut down to a few paragraphs. Alaney2k (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I would give a brief summary and then cut the bulk of it into its own article. -Djsasso (talk) 13:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice job on the short introduction. For the record, my last edit summary should read "bare" ;-) — Dorvaq (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It does seem a bit bare. Probably I can expand on it without mentioning specific cases, so that people won't be tempted to add more here instead of in the split article. Alaney2k (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"often referred to simply as hockey"

>>Ice hockey, often referred to simply as hockey in the United States, Canada and Sweden

thats correct for Russia as well. field hockey is not very popular here, so "hockey" means "ice hockey" in Russian, and bandy means bandy (or you can call it.. ahem.. "hockey with a ball" -- metaphrase for russian term) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.125.68.46 (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC) uggugua;jfng;dfkngf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.98.230 (talk) 23:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is the article called ice hockey? Most regions that play ice hockey call it hockey. You wouldn't refer to basketball in the NBA as indoor basketball or to Polo as horseback Polo. Calling hockey ice hockey seems bent towards the southern U.S. term over all others.Weonk (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)Weonk

Actually that isn't true. Most of europe calls it ice hockey and the term hockey refers to field hockey. And amongst most of the rest of the world hockey refers to field hockey. So to avoid confusion we have ice hockey at ice hockey and field hockey at field hockey. And hockey is a seperate page unto itself. -Djsasso (talk) 03:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

an editor has recently made changes saying that is called ice hockey in North America. We have (annecdotal) evidence here that it is called simply hockey in many other places too. I will, once more, revert these changes. Just thought I would post a note here to let people know what is going on.Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

From the Field hockey page we have this is the common name for it in many countries. However, the name field hockey is used in countries where the word hockey is usually reserved for another form of hockey, such as ice hockey or street hockey.

I am going to amend the article for uniformity and to have a more accurate representation, since hockey does not mean 'ice hockey' across the world, but rather, in some regions of it.::Halbared (talk) 12:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

listing all of the countries could quickly become rather cumbersome. I say there was nothing wrong with the older fversion. What do others think? Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

We used to have it listing all the various regions and it was decided to just remove it to use the "often refered to as hockey". Because at last count there was upwards of 20 countries that call it hockey, and to only list a couple of them is a POV decision, so if we list one we have to list all. -Djsasso (talk) 12:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that it would be cumbersome. However there needs to be something referring to the fact that hockey is not a universal name for ice hockey. The field hockey page seems to have managed it.Halbared (talk) 12:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't actually, that it is sometimes referred to as hockey would be a nickname. And when we list on wiki that someone has a nickname we don't go out of our way to say there are other people with this nickname. Even in countries where field hockey is mostly called hockey people that use the word hockey can be referring to ice hockey. You see ice hockey and field hockey are versions of the same basic sport. So there is no need for that level of detail. -Djsasso (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Time Between Periods

I don't watch hockey much, but I'm watching a Stanley Cup final game between Detroit and Pittsburgh. It's about to go into the second overtime. I can't find it anywhere... how long do the teams stay off the ice between periods? Lou Sander (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

TYpically 15 minutes.Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Somebody who knows about it (and can reference it, I guess) should put it in the article. That rest period played a big role in tonight's game, and I imagine in others, too.) Lou Sander (talk) 05:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Scoring at end of regulation

Is scoring with no time on the clock in hockey the same as basketball. To where the goal counts as long as the puck is in the air with no time left on the clock? -Jay Mers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.231.128.224 (talk) 08:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No, has to cross the line before the buzzer goes. -Djsasso (talk) 12:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Terminology section

I think that the Terminology section is out of place, anyone else think we should move it into a more comprehensive separate article and add a link in the See also section of this article? --Krm500 (talk) 10:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a separate article but I can't think of the name at the moment. I have been meaning to kill it off this article for awhile. -Djsasso (talk) 18:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It really stands out as something not belonging in the article. --Krm500 (talk) 09:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

List of ice hockey terminology is the article. I will remove it from this page. -Djsasso (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources for number of registered hockey players.

This chart needs to be updated, sourced and dated. The current data for the number of registered American hockey players does not match any of the current/past date listed on the USA hockey website. Cornhusker1225 (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Less extreme on-ice violence

They point to less extreme on-ice violence during the era before the rule was introduced.

This sentence seems to have been floating around since an earlier edit from I-don’t-care-to-find-out-when, and nobody every bothered to make it flow. Who points to less extreme violence? It no longer says. Also, it gives no examples or anything to back that up. —Wiki Wikardo 20:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It used to say "This so-called instigator rule is highly controversial in NHL hockey: many coaches, sportswriters, players and fans feel it prevents players from effectively policing the objectionable behavior of their peers, which is often cleverly hidden from referees." Someone probably pulled the statement due to the tag without bothering to see how it effected the paragraph it was in. --Yankees76 (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

God, I hate that fucking tag. —Wiki Wikardo

Neutral Zone Trap

The "Neutral Zone Trap" is a strategy which is used by a defending team with the goal of not allowing the attacking team to gain the redline (If the attacking team gains the redline, it allows them to dump the puck into the defending teams zone). The trap is setup by spreading defending players through the neutral zone. One defending forward should be just inside the attacking teams endzone. As the attacking team begins their "breakout," The defending forward inside the attacking teams zone must take away the center of the ice and force the attacking team to carry the puck up either side of the ice. As the attacking team enters the neutral zone, the defending players shift over to the side of the ice that the attacking team is skating the puck to. The Defending team must seal off the attacking team before the puck reaches the redline in order to give the attacking puck carrier no playmaking options, and essentially turn the puck over to the defending team.

How do you beat "The Trap?" In order to beat the trap, the attacking team must find a way to get the puck to the other side of the ice that the defending players have been shifting away from. This can be a difficult task against a team that executes the trap well. The most effective way to get the puck to the open side of the ice is to have your defenceman skate the puck up one side of the ice, with the his defensive partner following behind him. As the defending forward takes away the center of the ice, and the defenders begin the shift over to the "puck side," the puck carrying defenceman passes the puck back to his defence partner who then quickly moves the puck up to the winger on the other side of the ice. This play can be difficult to make because the defending player taking away the center of the ice will most likely be trying take this option away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krs449 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you be a little more clear about what changes you are proposing? There's a Neutral zone trap article, and a Neutral zone trap section in this article, summarizing the devoted article. What do you think needs to be changed in these places? —JAO • T • C 21:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Attendence Records ????

Michigan collegiate game or the Buffalo Winter Classic. The Michigan game lists 55000, the Buffalo game 71000, yet the Michigan game is listed as having the greatest attendance. Am I missing something?

Never Mind.

Scandinavia

Scandinavia = Sweden, Denmark and Norway (not Finland)

Nordic countries = Sweden, finland and so on.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.234.251.88 (talk) 15:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I see you're editing from a Swedish IP, so I guess your native language is Swedish (as is mine). And it's quite true that the Swedish word "Skandinavien" practically never includes Finland. As for the English word "Scandinavia" however, that's much more ambiguous. See the article Scandinavia and especially the archives of Talk:Scandinavia. That said, I wouldn't oppose changing it to the more unambiguous "Nordic countries". (I don't think much hockey is played in Iceland, whatever D2: The Mighty Ducks tells us, but I wouldn't care too much about that.) —JAO • T • C 17:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yup, in English the word Scandinavia does usually include Finland in everyday common ussage. -Djsasso (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Better reference for the montreal carnival

Came accross this doing some digging and there was a report on a game at the montreal carnival between Montreal and Quebec ending in a draw in 1883. the source is the New york times Jan 27 1883 ed ( http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=980CE7D8123BE033A25754C2A9679C94629FD7CF ). Don tknow how to incorporate this without wrecking the prose but if someone would like to, here it is Ottawa4ever (talk) 02:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Team members

I feel this information is incorrect:

Five skaters and one goaltender

This is the standard number of players on the ice at one time, but as such, a team is usually composed of more players. Typically two goalies and 21 skaters. It might differ for certain leagues though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.228.122 (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

What needs to be remembered is that not all hockey is organized hockey (ie league). All that is required to play the game properly is 5 skaters and 1 goalie. -Djsasso (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)