Matt, you're not out of the woods either. Some of your vernacular was absolutely non-hockey and instead was jacked from that sport of 22 gay guys diving all over a grassy field while kicking a ball.
Matt, you're not out of the woods either. Some of your vernacular was absolutely non-hockey and instead was jacked from that sport of 22 gay guys diving all over a grassy field while kicking a ball.
Oh please. Atleast I understand what is going on.
As opposed to the 20 gays that decided to stop mid play to fight with handbags? Instead of do what they are paid to do?
Relatively, yes.. but that's relative to BlueFlame knowledge.
More excellent hockey knowledge here guys.
A team is made up of 20 skaters (18 players and 2 goalies. A team may not go 19 players and 1 goalie) per team. 5 players (plus 1 goalie) or optionally 6 skaters (and no goalie) may be on the ice at a given time.
Also, how many fights did you see in the Olympics?
Right, 0. Because IIHF rules institute 5 + GM for fighting, where NHL only assesses a GM in specific situations (1 man fight I believe is one of them).
If the NHL instituted a 1 fight rule (which is what the GM for fighting effectively does), you would see nearly 0 fighting as well.
However, you'd see more dangerous and violent plays as a result of not having that unwritten code of honour that revolves around fighting and dangerous/violent plays (meaning, if you check someone in a bad manner, you should be prepared to fight as a result of the dirty play).
It's a good system as it theoretically keeps players in check from going too far, and writing out cheques on dirty plays that they can't cash.
But what do I know, I've only grown up around hockey my entire life, played over 600 games of it, and officiated over 1000 games, 100+ of those being Junior hockey.
The only Ice Hockey I watch is at the olympics. BECAUSE there isn't any fighting. [Generally]
Why do you feel necessary to specify that there's 20 players in a team? I mean, I guess it's only really the back up tender that doesn't get ice time, but everyone else does. So it's still a 20 man team. It sounds like you're suggesting that only the 5+1 guys on the ice at any one time are the sum of a teams parts?
Well surely as a seasoned player in hockey you'd know that it wasn't the case, as I said, I'm just a bit puzzled why you felt it necessary to mention that.
Why do you feel necessary to specify that there's 20 players in a team? I mean, I guess it's only really the back up tender that doesn't get ice time, but everyone else does. So it's still a 20 man team. It sounds like you're suggesting that only the 5+1 guys on the ice at any one time are the sum of a teams parts?
Well surely as a seasoned player in hockey you'd know that it wasn't the case, as I said, I'm just a bit puzzled why you felt it necessary to mention that.
Well, you indicated that 20 players stop to fight. I figured I should tell you that there's either 2 teams (thus 40 players), or that they have more than 10 players per team.
I'm here to educate, as you clearly know nothing about the sport. Although that about sums up every single topic you attempt to discuss here, and then try to argue as if you're some kind of expert.
Or was it that you tried to add 20 + 20 and managed to get out 20, because algebra is so arbitrary and such nonsense?
Well you put forward that all 22 football players in a match must be homosexual?
I mentioned 20 because it was a far more reasonable number than 40, but enough of a number to include both teams.
Essentially all you did was attack the pair of us for not using Canuk hockey slang. Dat logic
So you should have said 10 (or 12 if you include goalies). I listed the number of homosexuals on the field at a single time. You appeared to roll a dice and pick a random number.
I guess I should stop trying to apply conventional logic to BlueFlame logic as it's obviously impossible. You fly hard in the face of logic.
EDIT: Lets play a game, to test your guys' hockey knowledge.
Is this a legal check?
I guess I should stop trying to apply conventional logic to BlueFlame logic as it's obviously impossible. You fly hard in the face of logic.
EDIT: Lets play a game, to test your guys' hockey knowledge.
Is this a legal check?
Old Time Hockey argument. In recent years been pretty easy to easy to question this as many of the Shanabanned players have been goon types themselves. NHLPA will of course say yes to fightining for as long as 2min TOI goons are part of the PA. Slowly dying breed though.
And then there is the entertainment value of fighting.
yes
Stick above the numbers + jumping to hit higher. Nope... it was a retribution hit for the hit he received.
Well, in this case.. height of stick doesn't matter. Jumping however does make it charging. Plus it's from behind with the Philly player having no chance to defend himself, so you could go boarding instead, or even Check from Behind.
Options being (all of which are OR options, not all of them called at once):
2 for charging (unlikely because of obvious injury and dangerous hit)
2 for boarding (unlilkely becuase of inability to defend from check)
2 for Cross Checking (unlikely, because stupid play)
5 + GM for charging (more likely)
5 + GM for boarding (more likely)
5 + GM for Check From Behind (unlikely in NHL standards because low velocity of play, but still possible)
5 + GM for Cross Checking (Possible, considering it's used as a substitution call in case of a low speed CFB)
Options being (all of which are OR options, not all of them called at once):
2 for charging (unlikely because of obvious injury and dangerous hit)
2 for boarding (unlilkely becuase of inability to defend from check)
2 for Cross Checking (unlikely, because stupid play)
5 + GM for charging (more likely)
5 + GM for boarding (more likely)
5 + GM for Check From Behind (unlikely in NHL standards because low velocity of play, but still possible)
5 + GM for Cross Checking (Possible, considering it's used as a substitution call in case of a low speed CFB)
The Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics
(163 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG