Extinct the Panthers (the team, not the animal)

tonyandpals

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 18, 2004
7,860
Burlington
I wasn't exactly clear there. You are of course right in it's basic sense, I just meant a break away where it is essentially, 3v3. A couple of the checking forwards perhaps are still in the offensive zone, maybe the corresponding defensemen are there with them, leaving a 3v3 set in action at the other end for a few seconds. In that sense it happens frequently during a game.
Agree that there is that type of 3v3 action in a game, but would say it's completely different than the OT 3v3 action. Offense gets broken up and the opposing team starts up ice. In that situation there are 4 skaters somewhere else on the ice and possession is not nearly as important.
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
Agree that there is that type of 3v3 action in a game, but would say it's completely different than the OT 3v3 action. Offense gets broken up and the opposing team starts up ice. In that situation there are 4 skaters somewhere else on the ice and possession is not nearly as important.
Fair, and the possession changes in OT are deadly. From that perspective, I guess you are right, there's more shooter versus goalie. I still prefer the 3x3, even if as you say the players wouldn't.
 

tonyandpals

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 18, 2004
7,860
Burlington
Fair, and the possession changes in OT are deadly. From that perspective, I guess you are right, there's more shooter versus goalie. I still prefer the 3x3, even if as you say the players wouldn't.
I would too, I love it. I was reading through MIAA rules for the 1A tourney the other day it I think they start 4v4 for 8 minutes, then 3v3 for 8 minute periods until they get a winner. Found that interesting for sure. I was hoping to catch some OT in the game I went to last week but the tie was broken w/ 30 seconds left.
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
I would too, I love it. I was reading through MIAA rules for the 1A tourney the other day it I think they start 4v4 for 8 minutes, then 3v3 for 8 minute periods until they get a winner. Found that interesting for sure. I was hoping to catch some OT in the game I went to last week but the tie was broken w/ 30 seconds left.
I like the pure 3x3, but if 4x4 was going to be tried, I think I'd like to see 4x4 for 5 minutes versus say 8, then just sets of 5 minutes with 3x3. Just to keep it moving, and in some sense more consistent.
 

LogansDad

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
29,707
Alamogordo
I couldn't disagree more. I really enjoy 3x3 for the sudden death OT in the regular season, and would be okay with extending it, but it completely changes the way the play flows and the strategy involved. It's pretty close to a completely different sport, and I think that 5x5 hockey and thecway teams flow together and against each other over 60 minutes is the most incredible beauty in all of sports.
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
16,148
Tuukka's refugee camp
I didn’t think there should’ve be supplemental discipline for the hit. Looks like the puck got in on him as he misjudged the bounce off the boards. Unfortunately that led to an awkward elbow position with Carlo getting hit in the head. Sucks but that’s hockey.
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
I didn’t think there should’ve be supplemental discipline for the hit. Looks like the puck got in on him as he misjudged the bounce off the boards. Unfortunately that led to an awkward elbow position with Carlo getting hit in the head. Sucks but that’s hockey.
Wow, we could see where he drove the elbow back... I took that as an intentional act to be sure.
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
I couldn't disagree more. I really enjoy 3x3 for the sudden death OT in the regular season, and would be okay with extending it, but it completely changes the way the play flows and the strategy involved. It's pretty close to a completely different sport, and I think that 5x5 hockey and thecway teams flow together and against each other over 60 minutes is the most incredible beauty in all of sports.
I don't disagree, the continuous end to end ebb and flow of hockey is just amazing when it's happening. The tension it builds is incredible.

I'm just not a fan of the shootout to end the regular season games. I gave it some thought, and if the Bs were #1 in the league in shootout success, I'd still be against it.
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
16,148
Tuukka's refugee camp
Wow, we could see where he drove the elbow back... I took that as an intentional act to be sure.
The puck bounced weird in the corner in a way he wasn’t expecting. He looked over his shoulder because that’s what everyone does when they go into a corner. That’s not indicative of intent to injure.
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
The puck bounced weird in the corner in a way he wasn’t expecting. He looked over his shoulder because that’s what everyone does when they go into a corner. That’s not indicative of intent to injure.
I'm guessing you've been on the ice in an average month more than I have in a year, so I accept you've got experience I don't. On the other hand, the fact that he looked over his shoulder as a typical act (gauge the pursuit, see where his help was) doesn't mean he didn't use the information to elbow intentionally. If you watch again, after the glance back, he has no issue tracking the puck, or any abrupt change of his skating or reaching motion because of the carom of the puck.

In my eyes what sets that play apart from an unintentional elbow is the angle of the motion. The act of digging the puck (straight to support) the way he was, then just as quickly yanking the elbow back (acknowledging it might have been in preparation to the impending hit), he was less likely to be successful with the angle of his arm motion. We almost always see that as a mostly level dig at the puck. It was a sneaky, veteran move with just enough plausibility to allow him to say it wasn't intentional. As we used to say, accidentally on purpose.

I will say you've made me overthink it (!), and I'm less sure than I was in the immediate aftermath.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
36,203
306, row 14
I don’t think it should’ve been supplemental discipline either. I think kenney’s right. Standard look back when 2 players are headed into the corner. Puck got in on Dadonov’s feet and handcuffed him which led to the steep angle of him digging the puck out and due to that, his elbow caught Carlo in the face.

It should’ve been a major because that is how the rule is written, but I don’t think it warranted a suspension. I think the play is analogous to an inadvertent high stick that draws blood. Not intentional, but your responsible for your stick.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,434
deep inside Guido territory
I didn’t think there should’ve be supplemental discipline for the hit. Looks like the puck got in on him as he misjudged the bounce off the boards. Unfortunately that led to an awkward elbow position with Carlo getting hit in the head. Sucks but that’s hockey.
There definitely should have been a major though. Any elbow to the head that causes injury is an automatic major.