Killing Two-Man Disadvantages
Posted by Beeeej
Killing Two-Man Disadvantages
Posted by: Beeeej (Moderator)
Date: November 04, 2014 09:52AM
In Coach Schafer's weekly summary email, he mentioned something I found interesting (among his generally optimistic narrative about some of the things the team had done so early against such good and practiced competition).
"On Friday night, we got off to a sluggish start, and had to kill off three power plays in the first 7 minutes, including a stretch of 1 minute, 38 seconds when we were down two skaters. We have now killed off 16 consecutive two-man disadvantages, spanning 14:50 and dating back to 2012."
That's actually kind of impressive. Of course there's the caveat that these two-man disadvantages (presumably most of them 5-on-3, though probably an occasional 6-on-4 with an empty net) averaged less than a minute each, and there's no additional information about whether any of the two-man disadvantages that converted to one-man-disadvantage penalty kills resulted in giving up a PPG. But still.
"On Friday night, we got off to a sluggish start, and had to kill off three power plays in the first 7 minutes, including a stretch of 1 minute, 38 seconds when we were down two skaters. We have now killed off 16 consecutive two-man disadvantages, spanning 14:50 and dating back to 2012."
That's actually kind of impressive. Of course there's the caveat that these two-man disadvantages (presumably most of them 5-on-3, though probably an occasional 6-on-4 with an empty net) averaged less than a minute each, and there's no additional information about whether any of the two-man disadvantages that converted to one-man-disadvantage penalty kills resulted in giving up a PPG. But still.
___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.
"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
Beeeej, Esq.
"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
Re: Killing Two-Man Disadvantages
Posted by: Jordan 04 (155.72.28.---)
Date: November 04, 2014 10:09AM
The two-man advantage is the most dangerous man-advantage in hockey.
Re: Killing Two-Man Disadvantages
Posted by: Dafatone (---.midco.net)
Date: November 04, 2014 11:00AM
And here I thought this would be about former Clarkson goalie David Leggio purposefully dislodging the net when facing a 2-on-0 th.e other day
Re: Killing Two-Man Disadvantages
Posted by: Bahnstorm (---.library.cornell.edu)
Date: November 04, 2014 01:58PM
Jordan 04
The two-man advantage is the most dangerous man-advantage in hockey.
First, ha.
Dafatone
And here I thought this would be about former Clarkson goalie David Leggio purposefully dislodging the net when facing a 2-on-0 th.e other day
Second, that video was hilarious. The O players flub the play so Leggio's move wasn't even necessary, but what puts it over the top is seeing him signaling for the penalty shot with his hands above his head and pointing to center ice, like he'd prefer that over the 2:00 minutes.
video: [www.youtube.com]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/04/2014 01:59PM by Bahnstorm.
Re: Killing Two-Man Disadvantages
Posted by: LaJollaRed (---.lightspeed.miamfl.sbcglobal.net)
Date: November 05, 2014 07:45PM
Bahnstorm
Jordan 04
The two-man advantage is the most dangerous man-advantage in hockey.
First, ha.
Dafatone
And here I thought this would be about former Clarkson goalie David Leggio purposefully dislodging the net when facing a 2-on-0 th.e other day
Second, that video was hilarious. The O players flub the play so Leggio's move wasn't even necessary, but what puts it over the top is seeing him signaling for the penalty shot with his hands above his head and pointing to center ice, like he'd prefer that over the 2:00 minutes.
video: [www.youtube.com]
Re Leggio: thought that was such a trashy thing to do. "Awarded Goals" exist in the NHL rulebook; that situation warrants one.
Re 5 on 3 defense: Every time I've ever seen a football team "fourth and inches" someone comments that if you can't make "Fourth and Inches" you probably don't deserve to win the game. More than 60 seconds of 5-3 hockey is a similar thing. The fact that Cornell even pays attention to that stat puts this team's focus on defense into perspective. Assuming Schafer hasn't just jynxed it.
Re: Killing Two-Man Disadvantages
Posted by: ugarte (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: November 05, 2014 09:57PM
He stopped the penalty shot too. Puck don't lie.Bahnstorm
Second, that video was hilarious. The O players flub the play so Leggio's move wasn't even necessary, but what puts it over the top is seeing him signaling for the penalty shot with his hands above his head and pointing to center ice, like he'd prefer that over the 2:00 minutes.
video: [www.youtube.com]
___________________________
quality tweets | bluesky (twitter 2) | ALAB Series podcast | Other podcasts and writing
quality tweets | bluesky (twitter 2) | ALAB Series podcast | Other podcasts and writing
Re: Killing Two-Man Disadvantages
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.arthritishealthdoctors.com)
Date: November 06, 2014 07:21AM
LaJollaRed
Bahnstorm
Jordan 04
The two-man advantage is the most dangerous man-advantage in hockey.
First, ha.
Dafatone
And here I thought this would be about former Clarkson goalie David Leggio purposefully dislodging the net when facing a 2-on-0 th.e other day
Second, that video was hilarious. The O players flub the play so Leggio's move wasn't even necessary, but what puts it over the top is seeing him signaling for the penalty shot with his hands above his head and pointing to center ice, like he'd prefer that over the 2:00 minutes.
video: [www.youtube.com]
Re Leggio: thought that was such a trashy thing to do. "Awarded Goals" exist in the NHL rulebook; that situation warrants one.
Re 5 on 3 defense: Every time I've ever seen a football team "fourth and inches" someone comments that if you can't make "Fourth and Inches" you probably don't deserve to win the game. More than 60 seconds of 5-3 hockey is a similar thing. The fact that Cornell even pays attention to that stat puts this team's focus on defense into perspective. Assuming Schafer hasn't just jynxed it.
Except that the attackers never even got a shot, saying nothing of on goal. So it's hard to award a goal, without there even being a shot.
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
Re: Killing Two-Man Disadvantages
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: November 06, 2014 03:47PM
They probably never attempted a shot because the net was off its moorings so early.Jim Hyla
Except that the attackers never even got a shot, saying nothing of on goal. So it's hard to award a goal, without there even being a shot.
I think you almost have to award a goal in this situation. Otherwise it becomes the obvious thing to do anytime a goalie sees a 2-0 developing since the odds of stopping a penalty shot are greater than stopping a 2-0. Not that this happens all that often but it's not as rare as a Cornell player scoring on a penalty shot.
Re: Killing Two-Man Disadvantages
Posted by: Josh '99 (---.nycmny.fios.verizon.net)
Date: November 06, 2014 05:37PM
Probably figured his coach would beat him if he didn't.ugarte
He stopped the penalty shot too. Puck don't lie.Bahnstorm
Second, that video was hilarious. The O players flub the play so Leggio's move wasn't even necessary, but what puts it over the top is seeing him signaling for the penalty shot with his hands above his head and pointing to center ice, like he'd prefer that over the 2:00 minutes.
video: [www.youtube.com]
Too soon?
Re: Killing Two-Man Disadvantages
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: November 06, 2014 06:21PM
KeithK
They probably never attempted a shot because the net was off its moorings so early.Jim Hyla
Except that the attackers never even got a shot, saying nothing of on goal. So it's hard to award a goal, without there even being a shot.
I think you almost have to award a goal in this situation. Otherwise it becomes the obvious thing to do anytime a goalie sees a 2-0 developing since the odds of stopping a penalty shot are greater than stopping a 2-0. Not that this happens all that often but it's not as rare as a Cornell player scoring on a penalty shot.
Did you watch it? The man on right wing missed the pass and had no chance of a shot.
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
Re: Killing Two-Man Disadvantages
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: November 06, 2014 07:39PM
OK, I missed that point. Was so focused on the net. The question then is whether the net was kicked off before the pass was missed. If after then you're right that a goal shouldn't be awarded.Jim Hyla
KeithK
They probably never attempted a shot because the net was off its moorings so early.Jim Hyla
Except that the attackers never even got a shot, saying nothing of on goal. So it's hard to award a goal, without there even being a shot.
I think you almost have to award a goal in this situation. Otherwise it becomes the obvious thing to do anytime a goalie sees a 2-0 developing since the odds of stopping a penalty shot are greater than stopping a 2-0. Not that this happens all that often but it's not as rare as a Cornell player scoring on a penalty shot.
Did you watch it? The man on right wing missed the pass and had no chance of a shot.
Re: Killing Two-Man Disadvantages
Posted by: Kyle Rose (---.c3-0.smr-ubr2.sbo-smr.ma.static.cable.rcn.com)
Date: November 07, 2014 01:16PM
Yeah, that will probably put a stop to it, but so would simply awarding a goal. I feel like that's the more appropriate rule change, especially since there's not even a chance of stopping an awarded goal.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/07/2014 01:16PM by Kyle Rose.
Re: Killing Two-Man Disadvantages
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: November 07, 2014 01:57PM
I think there is a real reluctance to award a goal without strong evidence that th epuck would have gone into the net. This rule change probably eliminates this play as an option for a goaltender, so it serves the purpose.Kyle Rose
Yeah, that will probably put a stop to it, but so would simply awarding a goal. I feel like that's the more appropriate rule change, especially since there's not even a chance of stopping an awarded goal.
Re: Killing Two-Man Disadvantages
Posted by: ftyuv (---.hsd1.ma.comcast.net)
Date: November 07, 2014 03:04PM
KeithK
I think there is a real reluctance to award a goal without strong evidence that th epuck would have gone into the net. This rule change probably eliminates this play as an option for a goaltender, so it serves the purpose.Kyle Rose
Yeah, that will probably put a stop to it, but so would simply awarding a goal. I feel like that's the more appropriate rule change, especially since there's not even a chance of stopping an awarded goal.
I think there should be repercussions outside of just the game -- a fine or something -- for doing something that is so blatantly against the spirit of the sport. This move was bush league to the extreme. While I agree that it's hard to justify awarding a goal where a shot wasn't ever taken, this is something I'd be embarrassed to see at a Wednesday night pickup game, let alone a professional game.
I don't know if there are rules that allow this sort of "it's not cricket" fining, and if there aren't, then Leggio shouldn't be fined for this incident. But that rule should be introduced.
I had the same thought when Avery pulled his crap against Brodeur, too.
Re: Killing Two-Man Disadvantages
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: November 07, 2014 06:28PM
It's absolutely a bush league move. But it's within the rules as much as a defenseman diving, stick extended, to trip the puck carrier in that situation. In both cases you commit an infraction and pay the penalty on the ice (penalty shot). I find it hard to justify a fine or suspension for poor sportsmanship when no one is getting hurt. Better to adjusthe rules as they half to reduce or eliminate the incentive for this kind of move.ftyuv
KeithK
I think there is a real reluctance to award a goal without strong evidence that th epuck would have gone into the net. This rule change probably eliminates this play as an option for a goaltender, so it serves the purpose.Kyle Rose
Yeah, that will probably put a stop to it, but so would simply awarding a goal. I feel like that's the more appropriate rule change, especially since there's not even a chance of stopping an awarded goal.
I think there should be repercussions outside of just the game -- a fine or something -- for doing something that is so blatantly against the spirit of the sport. This move was bush league to the extreme. While I agree that it's hard to justify awarding a goal where a shot wasn't ever taken, this is something I'd be embarrassed to see at a Wednesday night pickup game, let alone a professional game.
I don't know if there are rules that allow this sort of "it's not cricket" fining, and if there aren't, then Leggio shouldn't be fined for this incident. But that rule should be introduced.
I had the same thought when Avery pulled his crap against Brodeur, too.
Re: Killing Two-Man Disadvantages
Posted by: ftyuv (---.hsd1.ma.comcast.net)
Date: November 07, 2014 07:15PM
KeithK
It's absolutely a bush league move. But it's within the rules as much as a defenseman diving, stick extended, to trip the puck carrier in that situation. In both cases you commit an infraction and pay the penalty on the ice (penalty shot). I find it hard to justify a fine or suspension for poor sportsmanship when no one is getting hurt. Better to adjusthe rules as they half to reduce or eliminate the incentive for this kind of move.ftyuv
KeithK
I think there is a real reluctance to award a goal without strong evidence that th epuck would have gone into the net. This rule change probably eliminates this play as an option for a goaltender, so it serves the purpose.Kyle Rose
Yeah, that will probably put a stop to it, but so would simply awarding a goal. I feel like that's the more appropriate rule change, especially since there's not even a chance of stopping an awarded goal.
I think there should be repercussions outside of just the game -- a fine or something -- for doing something that is so blatantly against the spirit of the sport. This move was bush league to the extreme. While I agree that it's hard to justify awarding a goal where a shot wasn't ever taken, this is something I'd be embarrassed to see at a Wednesday night pickup game, let alone a professional game.
I don't know if there are rules that allow this sort of "it's not cricket" fining, and if there aren't, then Leggio shouldn't be fined for this incident. But that rule should be introduced.
I had the same thought when Avery pulled his crap against Brodeur, too.
Many organizations have policies, explicit or implicit, of "if you act in an unbecoming way that embarrasses the organization, you'll get punished." What I'm suggesting would fall in lines with that. In other words, the punishment wouldn't be for an infraction against the other team -- that's been dealt with already by the penalty shot, as you say -- but against the league as a whole.
Just because something isn't explicitly disallowed, it doesn't mean you can do it with impunity. I only mention that so that I can link to the obligatory Seinfeld moment.
Re: Killing Two-Man Disadvantages
Posted by: KeithK (---.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
Date: November 08, 2014 02:53PM
Sure and that's not an unreasonable position.ftyuv
Many organizations have policies, explicit or implicit, of "if you act in an unbecoming way that embarrasses the organization, you'll get punished." What I'm suggesting would fall in lines with that. In other words, the punishment wouldn't be for an infraction against the other team -- that's been dealt with already by the penalty shot, as you say -- but against the league as a whole.
Taking action against an athlete beyond what is explicitly called for in the rules is both harder to justify (IMO) and harder to make stick. Or at least would be harder to make stick at the highest level. Organizations can usually do whatever they want to players in the minors.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.