eva unit zero

Nabby's team is better defensively. Brodeur has a lower GAA despite facing more shots.

That excerpt is referring to a battle of the puck along the boards where both players could be deemed in possession of the puck but do not retain sole possession. It is not referring to a race for the puck as occurs with icing.

Cleary is a disappointment. He was supposed to be a star scorer, and he isn't and never was. He likely never will be. He is in his eleventh season and has yet to hit the 100 goal mark. There are twelve players drafted in the same year as Cleary who have more than 100 career goals and more points than Cleary. Cleary was the seventh forward drafted and 13th player.

Rule 67(a) A minor penalty shall be imposed on a player who interferes with or impedes the progress of an opponent who is not in possession of the puck. Rule 67, Note 1 Body position shall be determined as the player skating in front of or beside his opponent, traveling in the same direction. A player who is behind an opponent, who does not have the puck, may not use his stick, body or free hand in order to restrain his opponent, but must skate in order to gain or reestablish his proper position in order to make a check. A player is allowed the ice he is standing on (body position) and is not required to move in order to let an opponent proceed. A player may "block" the path of an opponent provided he is in front of his opponent and moving in the same direction. Moving laterally and without establishing body position, then making contact with the non-puck carrier is not permitted and will be penalized as interference. A player is always entitled to use his body position to lengthen an opponent's path to the puck, provided his stick is not utilized (to make himself "bigger" and therefore considerably lengthening the distance his opponent must travel to get where he is going); his free hand is not used and he does not take advantage of his body position to deliver an otherwise illegal check. It would seem you are incorrect on both counts, toby. As stated in Rule 67, hitting a player who is not in possession of the puck is interference. I don't know how much clearer it could be.

Teams like Washington are the ones that are the most affected by losing a star player. Teams where they are on the playoff bubble with their star in the lineup, and most of the games they win come when their star has a good night against a lower-tier team. With Pittsburgh, Detroit, or other top teams...if the team's best player has an off night or an injury, there are other players who can step it up and fill in for a game or two. With a team like Washington...Ovechkin goes down and there is nobody capable of filling the void even for a short term.

If you don't think New Jersey would be on the bubble with a 'good' goalie rather than Brodeur...that only means you think Brodeur is overrated. New Jersey is barely not on the bubble as is...if you downgraded Brodeur to a lower tier starter like say...Olaf Kolzig or Martin Gerber? They'd be well out of the playoffs. Pittsburgh would still be close to the #8 spot had they lost every single game against .500+ teams while Crosby was out.

Eriksson wasn't a bust. He was the sixth best defenseman in his draft class and he was the sixth defenseman taken, was a top-four defenseman on the Stanley Cup champions as a rookie, and has been the top defenseman for three teams. He is only viewed as a bust by people who unrealistically expected him to be another Lidstrom. And if that is the standard, there hasn't been a defenseman to enter the league since 1980 who isn't a bust.

Brodeur should be nominated alongside Ovechkin and Lidstrom, IMO.

Hitting someone who doesn't have the puck is interference. Hitting someone after the play is over is a late hit. Nowhere is there ever an option for a legal hit on an icing play. This is not a 'gray area' like many want to say it is. The rules are cut and dried in such a way that it is theoretically impossible for a legal hit to occur on an icing play. And as far as the 'injury' thing is concerned...numbers were posted earlier that said about ten icings occured per game, and each of those saw one race for the puck in every ten. My unscientific number for the amount of injuries sustained on icing chases is 5 per season on the average. SO let's see...there's about 1300 games per season including playoffs, each with an average of ten icing calls. That's 13000 icing calls per season, and 1300 races for the puck. So what we're saying is, a race for the puck on an icing call has a 0.5% chance of resulting in an injury. Sounds like a problem that must be addressed. Hell, with those kind of numbers it's probably LESS likely to hurt you than carrying the puck over the blue line or receiving a pass in open ice!

Adam Oates Luc Robitaille Curtis Joseph

In your 'icings comitted' and 'negated' categories, are you including plays where the goaltender comes out of the net to get the puck because the attacker is going to reach the puck first? Albeit less common with the trapezoid, that situation is probably the most common form of negated icing. While on the subject of icing, the NHL should do away with free icings for teams on the PK. I've always considered that a dumb idea. The team that broke the rules gets an advantage?

Linden only fell into the 'disappointment' category because he wasn't one of the six best forwards in th edraft that year, but went in the top ten at second overall. It's not so much that he was a disappointment, but that his draft year was very deep in terms of top level forwards. It's the only year I listed with six 1000-point scorers. The thing is, I laid down the criteria before I made up the lists, so that I wouldn't be looking at it and saying 'I think this guy was a disappointment, what criteria fit that argument?' I tried to set a reasonable standard...a player taken in the top ten is expected to be one of the best at his position in the draft. I allowed for a player to be 'top two' for any of the six positions on the ice, hence 6 forwards, 4 defensemen, and 2 goalies. Linden and Gelinas, while solid players, were taken in the top 10 and didn't fall into that category. The key to landing in the 'disappointment' category on that list is not so much being a bad player, but not being among the top players at your position despite a draft position that indicates you should be. Because generally, that's how players end up labeled as disappointments.

I am still against no-touch. I think the rule is fine as it is...the only thing no-touch does is brings the illegal hit out in front of the goal line...which is quite possibly more dangerous to the defending player. If the NHL wants to get serious about the apparent epidemic of icing-rerlated injuries that those who support no-touch are seeing...they need to call a penalty on every icing play where the defender gets hit. That would reduce injuries more than no-touch icing, because it would get rid of unneccessarily dangerous contact instead of just relocating it five feet up ice.

For all the top disappointments in recent history...let's take a look at the top ten draft picks each year from 1985 to 1992 for now, as almost all of the best players drafted after 1992 are yet to complete their careers and the rankings of such draft classes could be inaccurate and lead to falsely identified disappointments. We'll say that any player taken top ten who wasn't among the top six forwards, four defensemen, or two goaltenders from his draft class are major disappointments. So listed, by draft year, are the top 6/4/2 and the disappointments. 1985 Top Forwards: Joe Nieuwendyk, Wendel Clark, Craig Simpson, Ulf Dahlen, Derek King, Nelson Emerson Top Defensemen: Calle Johansson, Steve Chiasson, Fredrik Olausson, Dave Manson Top Goalies: Mike Richter, Bill Ranford Top-10 Disappointments: Craig Wolanin, Jim Sandlak, Dana Murzyn, Brad Dalgarno, Brent Fedyk, Craig Duncanson, Dan Gratton 1986 Top Forwards: Vincent Damphousse, Craig Janney, Scott Young, Adam Graves, Jimmy Carson, Joe Murphy Top Defensemen: Brian Leetch, Teppo Numminen, Zarley Zalapski, Jyrki Lumme Top Goalies: Ron Tugnutt, Tim Cheveldae Top-10 Disappointments: Neil Brady, Shawn Anderson, Dan Woodley, Pat Elynuik, Jocelyn Lemieux 1987 Top Forwards: Joe Sakic, Brendan Shanahan, Pierre Turgeon, Theoren Fleury, John Leclair, Andrew Cassels Top Defensemen: Mathieu Schneider, Glen Wesley, Bryan Marchment, Luke Richardson Top Goalies: Guy Hebert, Jeff Hackett Top-10 Disappointments: Wayne McBean, Chris Joseph, Dave Archibald, Jimmy Waite, Bryan Fogarty, Jayson More 1988 Top Forwards: Mark Recchi, Teemu Selanne, Jeremy Roenick, Rod Brind'Amour, Mike Modano, Alexander Mogilny Top Defensemen: Rob Blake, Bret Hedican, Keith Carney, Curtis Leschyshyn Top Goalies: Wade Flaherty, Stephane Fiset Top-10 Disappointments: Trevor Linden, Darrin Shannon, Daniel Dore, Scott Pearson, Martin Gelinas 1989 Top Forwards: Sergei Fedorov, Mats Sundin, Pavel Bure, Bill Guerin, Bobby Holik, Robert Reichel Top Defensemen: Nicklas Lidstrom, Vladimir Konstantinov, Adam Foote, Vladimir Malakhov Top Goalies: Olaf Kolzig, Byron Dafoe Top-10 Disappointments: Dave Chyzowski, Scott Thornton, Stu Barnes, Adam Bennett, Doug Zmolek, Jason Herter, Jason Marshall 1990 Top Forwards: Jaromir Jagr, Doug Weight, Keith Tkachuk, Peter Bondra, Owen Nolan, Slava Kozlov Top Defensemen: Sergei Zubov, Darryl Sydor, Derian Hatcher, Jason York Top Goalies: Martin Brodeur, Felix Potvin Top-10 Disappointments: Petr Nedved, Keith Primeau, Mike Ricci, Scott Scissons, John Slaney, Drake Berehowsky 1991 Top Forwards: Peter Forsberg, Eric Lindros, Alexei Kovalev, Markus Naslund, Ray Whitney, Zigmund Palffy Top Defensemen: Scott Niedermayer, Alexei Zhitnik, Philippe Boucher, Richard Matvichuk Top Goalies: Chris Osgood, Steve Shields Top-10 Disappointments: Pat Falloon, Scott Lachance, Aaron Ward, Alek Stojanov, Patrick Poulin, Martin Lapointe 1992 Top Forwards: Alexei Yashin, Martin Straka, Cory Stillman, Jere Lehtinen, Michael Peca, Anson Carter Top Defensemen: Roman Hamrlik, Sergei Gonchar, Mattias Norstrom, Adrian Aucoin Top Goalies: Nikolai Khabibulin, Jim Carey Top-10 Disappointments: Mike Rathje, Todd Warriner, Darius Kasparaitis, Ryan Sittler, Brandon Convery, Robert Petrovicky, Andrei Nazarov Comments: The top ten sure didn't seem to be a sure thing in the years sampled...although forwards from 87-91 could have been very good and still come out as a disappointment by this metric - Linden, Nedved, and Primeau all would have made the 'top 6' in 1985, 86, or 92's draft class, and many others, but are labeled as disappointments because they didn't in their own year. Also oddly, in the years sampled...Jimmy Waite was the only goaltender taken in the top 10.

Nashville is Central time zone, as are Chicago and St.Louis.

I would say the following players should be considered for the Hart: Alexander Ovechkin. The league's top forward on a terrible team that still may make the playoffs. Realistically he deserves the award. Evgeni Malkin. He's among the league leaders in points and kept his team afloat when their captain and star center went down injured. If Washington misses the playoffs, he's the most valuable forward on a playoff team, which is often enough to win the award. Martin Brodeur. The league's top goaltender on a team with thin defense and weak forwards, and the league's most valuable goaltender. Nicklas Lidstrom. The best player on the best team. That player always must be considered for the MVP award, even if he's not nominated.

Just because a penalty ISN'T called does not mean one has not been committed. As far as the rules are concerned, and as far as interference is handled in every other situation, a penalty SHOULD be called every time. As far as my being wrong on the icing rule...I had just finished a ten hour shift at work with only a fifteen minute break in the middle, and I had been awake for about 20 hours at that point. A little leeway is allowed there, no?

Intentionally blocking a player without the puck is interference even if there is no contact or you don't initiate contact. The only player who can physically impede a player without the puck is the puck carrier, who is allowed to block players attempting to take the puck. As the defensive player is NOT the puck carrier (or the whistle would be blown) this is not the case in your example.

In that situation? Realistically, the play should be blown the dead the moment the penalty occurs. Because regardless of which player touches the puck, the play is dead upon that occuring, and the faceoff will go down the other end. But just to play along...if the defensive player gets to the puck and stands over it without touching it, and physically prevents the offensive player from touching it, he should be called for interference for the same reason; at that point there is no situation where the DEFENSIVE player can lay a legal hit either.

Embarrassing as Fick?

Yzerman wasn't nearly traded for Daigle, and it wasn't 1993. Yzerman was nearly traded to Ottawa in 1995 for Stan Neckar and a draft pick..which would have been even worse. But the thing is..he WASN'T traded. And Lindros was one of the most dominant players the league has ever seen when he was healthy. Had he not has concussion issues, he might be a top ten all-time scorer overall by now. At the time of the Lindros trade, Lidstrom was coming off his rookie season, and Fedorov was coming off his second year. As good as Lidstrom is, at the time he was probably the fourth best defenseman on the team defensively, and the Wings could have afforded to give up his offense at that time as the offense was primarily routed through Yzerman. In hindsight, any of the proposed deals for Lindros look bad. But had Lindros remained the same kind of healthy that Lidstrom or Fedorov did? He would have won SEVERAL Hart trophies. Had Lidstrom and Fedorov been the injury prone players and Lindros the bastion of health...that trade might have been looked at as a fair deal. And the question wasn't would the Wings have traded Yzerman for Selanne. My question was would the POSTER have made that deal, because that was the closest comparison to Z/Ovie.

The difference is this. In examples such as Vladdy's hit, the player is about to become the puck carrier, so it's reasonable to argue that the hitting player expected the player being hit to have the puck by the time contact was made, and this happens often where a player gets leveled after getting the puck by a check initiated before he had it. Woywitka's hit on Kopecky is an example of this kind of hit, where the player throws the check expecting the puck to be there. With an icing call, this is never the case, because the defensive player is not in possession of the puck at any time during play. If the offensive player throws a check and it helps him touch the puck first, that's interference because he impeded a player who did not have the puck. If he throws the check after the defensive player touches the puck, it's a late hit and should be penalized as unsportsmanlike contact. The difference is there is never any situation where the attacking player can throw a LEGAL check on an icing play, so any time it does happen it should be penalized accordingly.

The difference being that a player who just got rid of the puck was a legal target moments earlier, and it's reasonable to suggest that a player who was throwing a hit at a player with the puck wouldn't be able to pull up in the brief moment between the player giving up the puck and the contact being made, assuming the hit was initiated at a legal point in time. With icing, there is no such situation because the defensive player is never a legal target because he never has the puck during play.

Here's a better look at it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xS5zN47FLkw&NR=1 As you can see, Yzerman's shot ended up in Roy's gear. Roy thought he had it, and went to do his statue of liberty routine. But the puck was underneath Roy's glove, not in it like Roy thought, and Shanahan and Fedorov were on the puck before Roy could react. Shanahan ultimately puts it in the net, due mainly to the fact that he was already coming hard at the net and a backchecking Sakic is the only Avs player near the play who has any sort of defensive ability; you'll notice Rob Blake standing in front of the net watching as three Wings forwards converge on the crease; then Shanahan was able to basically just stick his stick out and score. Fedorov would have had the goal had Shanny not been ahead of him by a fraction of a second-Sergei's stick is right there when Shanny hits the puck.

It is not a legal play. A legal check is one thrown at the front or side of the puck carrier; the player in possession of the puck during play. When in an icing race, the defending player never becomes the puck carrier. Ever. The moment he touches the puck, the play is over. There is no point where the defending player gains possession of the puck during play. Meaning one of two things. Either the hit was thrown during play at a player without the puck, or it was thrown after the play at the player who last touched the puck. Either way it is a penalty. As far as 'the other end' it is not the player but the PUCK that must cross the center line to avoid an icing. In the same respect as an offsides call, the center line is considered 'neutral space' in that on the way out of the defensive end, if the puck is let go on the red line it will be icing, but if the puck is cleared back to (but not over) the red line and then iced, it will NOT be an icing even if from the exact same spot. The blue line works like this for offsides; you have to completely cross over the blue line to enter the zoen on sides, but the puck has to go all the way over the line to be out, as well. Touch icing is not the problem. The problem is that the league fails to penalize players who act dangerously and outside of the rules on icing plays. If the league properly penalized them, you would never see injuries from contact on icing plays.