Hockey in BlondeSpeak - Waivers

Time for more hockey learning - the blonde way. So, you’ve heard of waivers, right? Want to know what they are? They are a couple of things you need to know in order to understand how waivers work. (By the way, this explanation refers to NHL players, waivers, and contracts. If I tried to add all the other leagues and their rules into this, your mind might be blown. Not the way I want to lose readers, so I’m gonna try to keep it simple.)

First, some people may throw the different types of contracts a player may have into explanations on waivers. So, let’s clear this up. Yes, there are 2 types of contracts, 1-way and 2-way. If an NHL player has a 1-way contract and his team wants to send him down to the minors, the player must clear waivers first. If an NHL player has a 2-way contract, he can usually be moved back and forth between the NHL and the minors without having to clear waivers. (There are exceptions, but for general purposes, that is how it works). 2-way contracts are what you want if you have an injured player so you can call up a guy with a 2-way contract to take his place while the injured player recovers. 1-way/2-way, like streets, get it? But do they really have anything to do with whether or not a player will be placed on waivers? Not really.

Ok, now, there are 2 types of waivers, unconditional and regular. These are the important things to keep in mind. If a team places a player on unconditional waivers, it means that the team has no intention of keeping the player, even in the minors, so his contract can be completely bought out; done deal/game over. If a team places a player on regular waivers, it means the team really wants to keep him, but by NHL rules, they can’t reassign him or recall him from the AHL for “re-entry” without placing him on waivers. Sounds pretty risky, right? There are several conditions about when you can place a player on waivers, such as age, length of contract or amount of games played, etc., etc. They are important but if your team puts someone on waivers, trust they have met those conditions and don’t get bogged down by those pesky details. The most important part is why that player was placed on waivers.

So, let’s look at what the internet says:

~ From WikiAnswers:

Waivers are when a team wants to send a player down to the minors or farm team and they have to "waive" the rights to that player before they can send him down. If another team claims that player he is now their property. If the player clears waivers (no one claims him), he remains the property of the original team and can be sent to the minors. The player may be released and can be a free agent.

~From James Mirtle

Essentially any player that has three professional seasons since signing his first contract, or who has played 180+ NHL games, must go through waivers before going to the AHL. The waiver system allows all 29 other NHL clubs to pick up that player, with teams lower down in the standings taking precedence over those at the top. Players are on waivers for two days, and if they go unclaimed, they're off to the minors.

If they go to the minors and then return to the NHL club, players don't have to pass through waivers again unless they've been with the big club for 10+ games or 30+ days.

Those are both pretty good examples of the waiver process but are they clear enough? Let’s break this down into BlondeSpeak:

Waivers are like eBay. Want to get rid of a player? If he is on unconditional waivers, you put him on eBay with a 2 day listing, because he just doesn’t suit your décor anymore. Let’s hope somebody bids and wins him. Bidders that have lower “ratings” get the pick over any competitive bidder who has higher “ratings”, just to keep things fair. Then you pack him up and ship him out, so long, nice knowing ya. If your bidder is nice, they might even give you a good review on their purchase, but you can bet fans of the player won’t be posting pleasant comments on your eBay listing!

If nobody buys him, you can just let him go, buhbye, see ya. (Kind of like sending him off to the charity bin at Salvation Army, because you certainly have no more use for him. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have listed him on eBay in the first place, right?)

If he is on regular waivers, you hope that nobody bids on him during that 2 day listing, so you can send him down to the AHL. The risk here is a bidder might come along and snatch his butt up and you’ve lost him. But what are you gonna do, you had to put him up for bid in order to send him down to the AHL, you know? That’s why people get so worried and stress out for 2 days during the time a player is placed on waivers. He might be gone by the time the whole listing period is over. If nobody bids on him, he has "cleared" waivers, WooHoo! Just what we wanted!

So, yeah, maybe I didn’t cover all the wherefores and how to’s, but if you want to know those, Google away. I just want to give you the overall simple description of waivers and how they work in essence. I’m a little worried that people are gonna want to get into all those details, but remember; I’m not an expert; I’m just a blonde girl who wants the simple things in life…Any questions?

Hockey in BlondeSpeak - The Trapezoid Rule

In the course of your hockey reading, you may have heard discussions about revoking the trapezoid rule. Didn’t happen as of today, but maybe you aren’t clear on the rule to begin with. The rule was instituted as part of the post-lockout 2005 rule reformation package, and it was designed to stimulate more opportunities by the offense. It was nicknamed the “Marty Brodeur Rule” because he can play a puck so well; even outside the crease, it was felt it gave him and other goalies like him, an unfair advantage. To be honest, Brodeur wasn’t always a goalie; he started playing hockey as a forward, so having this “exceptional” skill is no surprise.

Many people who have watched hockey for more than 5 years pretty much hate this rule. Most newer fans don’t know what it was like to see goalies in action prior to the rule change and just accept it as a rule of the game. The rule is not imposed by the IIHF and there was no such restriction during the Olympics. If you can remember back to February, you saw hockey games without the trapezoid. (Personally, it’s something I would prefer to forget, but not because of the no trapezoid rule.)

Anyway, let me break the trapezoid rule down into BlondeSpeak for you:

What the NHL rule book says:

1.8 Goalkeeper’s Restricted Area - A restricted trapezoid-shaped area behind the goal will be laid out as follows: Five feet (5') outside of each goal crease (six feet (6') from each goal post), a two-inch (2") red line shall be painted extending from the goal line to a point on the end of the rink ten feet (10') from the goal crease (eleven feet (11') from the goal post) and continuing vertically up the kick plate (see diagram on the page iv preceding the table of contents). (Paint code PMS 186).

How it was interpreted by a sports writer:

''A goaltender may not play the puck outside a designated area behind the net. This area is defined by lines that begin on the goal line, six feet from each goal post, and extend diagonally to points 28 feet apart at the end boards. Should a goalie play the puck outside this area behind the goal line, a minor penalty for delay of game will be imposed. The determining factor will be the position of the puck.''

The New York Times/ Jason Diamos/ September 16, 2005

BlondeSpeak:

Goalies are not allowed to color outside the lines!

No, seriously, all this rule does is create two patches of ice, in the corners, where the goaltender can't play the puck. But even seasoned goaltenders rarely ever played the puck there anyway, it's way out of position and out of many younger goalies comfort zones.

In my opinion, if a goalie is skilled enough to be able to play the puck far from the net but still get back into the crease to make the all important saves, I say let him do it. It adds real excitement to the game and additional thrills to goalie fans like me.

(Editors note: Once again, I would like to point out that I am not an expert, I did not see the replay. The purpose of this post is to simplify hockey stuff for those with who want a simple explanation but don't want to look stupid by asking. If you already know the ins and outs of the trapezoid rule, and it insults your intelligence, my most humble apologies, you must obviously not be blonde.) 

Hockey in BlondeSpeak - Penalty Shots

(Semi-serious hockey post… yeah, right! Before I begin, anyone with any hockey knowledge who reads this and would like to point out any errors, please bash away, comments always welcome! But, I do not profess to be an expert, so please don’t expect 100% accuracy.)

I have questions, I want answers. What, exactly, constitutes when a penalty shot is called?

Let’s break this down, the blonde way. (Don’t get insulted, all you blondes. I am one of you).

So, the whistle blows and the zebra crosses his fists above his head. The crowd moans and the opposing team gets a penalty shot. Why, you ask?

 
 
 
 


Here is what the NHL says:

Rule 25 - Penalty Shot

25.1 Penalty Shot – A penalty shot is designed to restore a scoring opportunity which was lost as a result of a foul being committed by the offending team, based on the parameters set out in these rules.

And, 25.8 Infractions – Refer to the Reference Tables – Table 13 – Summary of Penalty Shots for a list of the infractions that shall result in a penalty shot being awarded (see specific rule numbers for complete descriptions).

There are four (4) specific conditions that must be met in order for the Referee to award a penalty shot for a player being fouled from behind. They are:

(i) The infraction must have taken place in the neutral zone or attacking zone, (i.e. over the puck carrier’s own blue line);

(ii) The infraction must have been committed from behind;

(iii) The player in possession and control (or, in the judgment of the Referee, clearly would have obtained possession and control of the puck) must have been denied a reasonable chance to score (the fact that he got a shot off does not automatically eliminate this play from the penalty shot consideration criteria. If the foul was from behind and he was denied a “more” reasonable scoring opportunity due to the foul, then the penalty shot should be awarded);

(iv) The player in possession and control (or, in the judgment of the Referee, clearly would have obtained possession and control of the puck) must have had no opposing player between himself and the goalkeeper.

Here is what Wikipedia says:

A penalty shot is awarded to a player who is deemed to have lost a clear scoring chance on a breakaway by way of a penalty infraction by an opposing player. A breakaway, in this case, means that there are no other players between the would-be shooter and the goaltender of the defending team. Generally, the penalty shot is awarded in lieu of what would normally be a minor penalty, so the fouled team will not get both a penalty shot and a power play from a single infraction.

According to NHL rules, various infractions during a breakaway that can lead to a penalty shot being awarded include: a goaltender deliberately dislodging a goal-post (delay of game), a defending player using a stick or any other part of his body to interfere with the attacking player, a goaltender or other player throwing his stick to distract or hinder the attacking player, or any other foul committed against the attacking player from behind. In addition to this, a penalty shot is awarded to the opposing team if a non-goalie player intentionally covers the puck in his own team's goal crease.

Here is what the Blonde Girl says:

BlondeSpeak: If an opponent, with no other player between him and the goalie, is denied an attempt to shoot and possibly score a goal due to a penalty on him from behind, he can be awarded a penalty shot by the ref.

Forget all the other conditions and requirements. Basically, if you see a player being given a penalty shot, the above in BlondeSpeak is basically how it happened and is probably all you really need to know. Whether we agree with the refs or not, they make the call.

Doesn’t seem fair, does it? I mean, there was no guarantee that the player was actually going to score! But, now he gets a chance to make another attempt, one on one, like a shoot out? Yeah, I don’t like it either. I especially don’t like it when it happens TWICE against our baby Bear goalie.

Penalty shots, like shoot outs, will give you a heart attack. They suck…Any questions?