HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > By The Numbers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
By The Numbers Hockey Analytics... the Final Frontier. Explore strange new worlds, to seek out new algorithms, to boldly go where no one has gone before.

Do Teams Wait Too Long to Pull the Goalie?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-28-2012, 09:11 PM
  #51
MadLuke
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,197
vCash: 500
Sure 5 on 4 is better than 6 on 5 in 4 on 3 is better..


2 againts 1 is better than 4 on 3 and 1 againt 0 is the best of the best.

But that being said, you say that the sixth skater is not a bonus on faceoff 2 second before the end of period situation.

What is the best number of skater you think ? 3-4-5 or 6 ? When you face 5 skater and goaltender of course.

MadLuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2012, 09:32 PM
  #52
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,994
vCash: 500
Faceoff

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadLuke View Post
Sure 5 on 4 is better than 6 on 5 in 4 on 3 is better..


2 againts 1 is better than 4 on 3 and 1 againt 0 is the best of the best.

But that being said, you say that the sixth skater is not a bonus on faceoff 2 second before the end of period situation.

What is the best number of skater you think ? 3-4-5 or 6 ? When you face 5 skater and goaltender of course.
No ideal number since the defensive center will simply overplay and scramble or destroy the draw regardless of the number of skaters the offence has.

If the offensive team can actually get a fair faceoff draw then for two seconds 4 other skaters is more than enough.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2012, 09:35 PM
  #53
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 32,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
No benefit is gained from the sixth skater .
Of course there is a benefit -- there are >2 seconds left, the only way to shoot is if the draw comes right to your tape. Another player behind center increases the (still very small) chances of getting a quick shot off rather than have someone reaching to get to the puck too late.

If nothing else, he can stand behind the board-side winger to give the centerman balanced options to either side, since the winger can interfere with the defense to provide a clear win. There is literally no good reason not to do this.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2012, 09:56 PM
  #54
MadLuke
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,197
vCash: 500
I think the same thing, it would be very strange that 5 player is the best amount of player, why ?

Why not 4 ?

For me the more the better, full the blue line completely, you need the puck on the stick on the faceoff with those time, the more player you have, the more easy is to win the faceoff putting the puck on a player stick.

MadLuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2012, 09:56 PM
  #55
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,994
vCash: 500
I See.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
Of course there is a benefit -- there are >2 seconds left, the only way to shoot is if the draw comes right to your tape. Another player behind center increases the (still very small) chances of getting a quick shot off rather than have someone reaching to get to the puck too late.

If nothing else, he can stand behind the board-side winger to give the centerman balanced options to either side, since the winger can interfere with the defense to provide a clear win. There is literally no good reason not to do this.
Now we are going from < 2 seconds to > 2 seconds. NHL teams have actually timed the various offensive and defensive options.

First the shooter has to be skating into the shot, waiting kills the clock and closes shooting lanes. Movement saves time and offers greater shooting lane looks.

That stated there is no reason for the defensive center to indulge a fair draw which might allow a shot.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2012, 09:56 PM
  #56
MadLuke
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
If the offensive team can actually get a fair faceoff draw then for two seconds 4 other skaters is more than enough.
Is 3 not more than enough ?

If 4 better than 3, why not 5 other player's ?

MadLuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2012, 10:01 PM
  #57
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,994
vCash: 500
Five Players

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadLuke View Post
I think the same thing, it would be very strange that 5 player is the best amount of player, why ?

Why not 4 ?

For me the more the better, full the blue line completely, you need the puck on the stick on the faceoff with those time, the more player you have, the more easy is to win the faceoff putting the puck on a player stick.
Rules mandate five skaters per side,unless there is a combination of minors that produce a 4 on 4 or 3 on 3.

Still the defensive center controls the situation if he scrambles or collapses the faceoff.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2012, 11:42 PM
  #58
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 32,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Now we are going from < 2 seconds to > 2 seconds. NHL teams have actually timed the various offensive and defensive options.
Needless to say, I put the > in the wrong direction. We are talking about a short-time scenario.

Quote:
First the shooter has to be skating into the shot, waiting kills the clock and closes shooting lanes. Movement saves time and offers greater shooting lane looks.
Right. So one option is to stack two forwards on the board side an have the higher man skate into the circle unobstructed. Why not?

Quote:
That stated there is no reason for the defensive center to indulge a fair draw which might allow a shot.
No, but it still happens sometimes.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2012, 11:48 PM
  #59
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,794
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
6 on 5, the ideal situation is getting the puck to the open skater. The more skaters on the ice the harder it is to find open ice and the open skater.
Are you actually saying it's easier to find an open skater 5-on-5 than it is 6-on-5?

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2012, 11:52 PM
  #60
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,794
vCash: 500
I really just don't know what to say at this point.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2012, 04:48 AM
  #61
Felonious Python
Moderator
Purple Squirrel
 
Felonious Python's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The Hot Seat
Posts: 13,143
vCash: 500
Pulling a goalie is only effective if there's some kind of strategy in place for playing with 6 skaters.

It's not something the players themselves are particularly used to, and throwing in another guy so late in the game can be more of a hinderance and distraction than if they just played their game hard with 5.

And depending on the opponent, you can potentially embolden them if they get the sense that the other team doesn't know what to do with six, and are leaving their net empty.

My thinking is if you've got the other team on the ropes, keep your goalie in, a five man unit will probably be more effective in getting one in than just tossing another skater into the mix.

Felonious Python is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2012, 08:22 AM
  #62
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,994
vCash: 500
Shooting Lanes and Paths to the Net

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Are you actually saying it's easier to find an open skater 5-on-5 than it is 6-on-5?
Shooting lanes or paths to the net are still defined by the 5 defensive players. A 6th offensive player does not change this defensive reality.

< than two seconds the sixth offensive player is either too far away to contribute or creates clutter and obstacles for the offense - more bodies in the shooting lanes and paths to the net competing for space and the puck.

> than two seconds the sixth offensive player has to add offensive options to exploit the shooting lanes or paths to the net. This is where handedness becomes a factor since a RHS/LHS option from the various shooting lanes and paths creates openings and opportunities.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2012, 08:52 AM
  #63
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 32,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
< than two seconds the sixth offensive player is either too far away to contribute or creates clutter and obstacles for the offense - more bodies in the shooting lanes and paths to the net competing for space and the puck.
You are completely ignoring the very specific example I provided of how the 6th player can act as a shield for the board-side winger to step unobstructed into the circle. With only 5 skaters, this could only be accomplished by either subtracting a defenseman or leaving the slot-side empty, either of which would be unnecessary since there is no risk in simply adding the sixth skater.

And while we're using 2 seconds as an arbitrary cutoff, the reality is that the risk-free period is the amount of time it takes to win a draw cleanly and shoot the puck the length of the ice, which is probably more like 4 or 5 seconds on a practical basis. Not too many teams would actually attempt to take an immediate shot on the empty net in that kind of defensive situation.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2012, 09:01 AM
  #64
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,794
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felonious Python View Post
Pulling a goalie is only effective if there's some kind of strategy in place for playing with 6 skaters.
Indeed. So when you do it, put a strategy in place. Practice it.

This discussion does assume competence on the part of the players and the coaches.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Shooting lanes or paths to the net are still defined by the 5 defensive players. A 6th offensive player does not change this defensive reality.
Same shooting lanes, an additional player to shoot. I don't see how that decreases your chances. With 2 seconds left, your only real hope is to get the puck on a teammate's stick for a quick-release prayer. Six sticks on the ice instead of five makes this easier.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
< than two seconds the sixth offensive player is either too far away to contribute or creates clutter and obstacles for the offense - more bodies in the shooting lanes and paths to the net competing for space and the puck.
If you're concerned about your playing clogging up a shooting lane, tell him to stay the hell out of the shooting lanes. Again, we're assuming competence on the part of the players and the coach, since we're talking about the NHL level.

With 2 seconds left, there is no time to compete for space and the puck, so such competition is irrelevant. If there is any competition for the puck, time will simply expire. With that little time, all you can hope for is a quick shot, maybe it will get past the defence and maybe the goalie won't make the stop.

It's a very low-percentage play, but then anything is low percentage with that much time left. But given the fact that the opponents simply do not have time to get the puck into the empty net, you don't lose anything.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2012, 09:22 AM
  #65
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,994
vCash: 500
Shield

Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
You are completely ignoring the very specific example I provided of how the 6th player can act as a shield for the board-side winger to step unobstructed into the circle. With only 5 skaters, this could only be accomplished by either subtracting a defenseman or leaving the slot-side empty, either of which would be unnecessary since there is no risk in simply adding the sixth skater.

And while we're using 2 seconds as an arbitrary cutoff, the reality is that the risk-free period is the amount of time it takes to win a draw cleanly and shoot the puck the length of the ice, which is probably more like 4 or 5 seconds on a practical basis. Not too many teams would actually attempt to take an immediate shot on the empty net in that kind of defensive situation.
Shield becomes a 200lb + obstacle to shoot around drastically reducing the trajectory angles to the 4' x 6' net.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2012, 09:29 AM
  #66
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,994
vCash: 500
Contradiction

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Indeed. So when you do it, put a strategy in place. Practice it.

This discussion does assume competence on the part of the players and the coaches.


Same shooting lanes, an additional player to shoot. I don't see how that decreases your chances. With 2 seconds left, your only real hope is to get the puck on a teammate's stick for a quick-release prayer. Six sticks on the ice instead of five makes this easier.


If you're concerned about your playing clogging up a shooting lane, tell him to stay the hell out of the shooting lanes. Again, we're assuming competence on the part of the players and the coach, since we're talking about the NHL level.

With 2 seconds left, there is no time to compete for space and the puck, so such competition is irrelevant. If there is any competition for the puck, time will simply expire. With that little time, all you can hope for is a quick shot, maybe it will get past the defence and maybe the goalie won't make the stop.

It's a very low-percentage play, but then anything is low percentage with that much time left. But given the fact that the opponents simply do not have time to get the puck into the empty net, you don't lose anything.
Obvious contradiction between the two consecutive bolded paragraphs.

Simply not putting a 200+ lb obstacle on the ice avoids the problem completely. Which is why the coaches are in the NHL.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2012, 10:12 AM
  #67
Doctor No
Retired
 
Doctor No's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 23,391
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Obvious contradiction between the two consecutive bolded paragraphs.

Simply not putting a 200+ lb obstacle on the ice avoids the problem completely. Which is why the coaches are in the NHL.
Are you saying that coaches are in the NHL because they agree with your opinion?

Doctor No is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2012, 10:21 AM
  #68
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,994
vCash: 500
No

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco MacArthur View Post
Are you saying that coaches are in the NHL because they agree with your opinion?
No such claim.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2012, 10:29 AM
  #69
Doctor No
Retired
 
Doctor No's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 23,391
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
No such claim.
Not explicitly, no.

Doctor No is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2012, 10:34 AM
  #70
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 32,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Shield becomes a 200lb + obstacle to shoot around drastically reducing the trajectory angles to the 4' x 6' net.
Perhaps I'm not explaining this clearly. Let me rephrase.

On a normal faceoff on the left side, there one is player on the left wing against the boards. If there are only a few seconds on the clock, the opposing winger ties up his stick and steps into his hip, preventing access to a quick shot.

Pull the goaltender. Put a second forward immediately behind that LW. Preferably a RHS. On the faceoff, the first LW intentionally accepts contact from the defender. The second forward now steps into the circle free and clear, right-handed shot positioned to pick up even a loose puck let alone a draw win. No new obstructions are created in the shooting lanes. If the defense chooses to stack two defensemen on the LW in response, you have new options elsewhere.

There is, literally, no good reason not to do it. It can only increase your chance of scoring.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2012, 10:45 AM
  #71
leeaf83
Registered User
 
leeaf83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,881
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to leeaf83 Send a message via Yahoo to leeaf83
This is a very interesting discussion. We don't really have data to project what would happen if teams did it earlier, we can only predict

So yes the fact that teams require 2 units is a factor; 18 skaters on a team so you second unit is your middle third. Also while teams practice the goalie out play, they are limited by the number of players. 11 players on the ice at a time so the reality is the entire 21 skaters on the roster (including 3 which dont dress) would still be 1 short to have two offensive units and two defensive units. And consider there are players who would be playing both sides of the goalie out scenario in a game situation.

Now people aren't talking much about teams down by 2 or even 3 pulling the goalie with more than 2 minutes to go. They'd have to use 2 units there.

Also another factor that the essays written in the 1980's do not cover; the icing line change rule brought in since 2005; that makes 2 important changes. Defensive teams less likely to simply fire it down the ice blindly as they may have when they could get a change. This is also causing the team on defense to use time outs more often in these cases. I think it is also causing offensive teams to use their 2nd units more. It's a common strategy for coaches since that rule came in to get fresh legs out there when the opposition ices it in order to get an energy advantage (and i'm talking about the entire game here not just goalie out scenarios).

So alas here's the way I see it (all these scenarios i'm not counting less than 5 seconds to go in a period or delayed penalties):
6 on 5 the simple odds indicate the team with the empty net to shoot at has more of a chance at scoring than the one with the extra attacker. Maybe a good study someone can do is look up in the last playoff how many goals were scored in these scenarios.

here's a list of empty net goals by team last year http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/hoc...NET_GOALS.html

highest is 14, lowest is 4, median is 7. Again if you throw out <5 second or delayed penalty goalie out scenarios i'd gander the number of goals scored BY the teams with the empty net might be half. that.
.

Now of course the simple odds are that you're more likely to score a goal then get scored on with the goalie out so when you need a goal badly why not? Let's say you tell a coach they have 2 options;
leave the goalie in while losing 10 times in the last minute, you'll score once and get scored on once and have no goals the other 8 times.
OR pull the goalie, you'll score twice, get scored on 4 times and have no goals the other 4.

Well any rational coach would look at it as one extra tying goal is worth the 3 extra games losing by 2.

So why not do it earlier? The coach is more likely to get blamed. I'm sure we have all been in situations where a team is down by 1, pulls the goalie and gets scored on, puts the goalie back in and scores; so they lose by 1 with the empty netter being the difference. It would look bad on the coach if this happens due to him pulling the goalie too early. I would also gander that you put both teams second units out there (and some teams do use 2 units defensively in that situation) and the defending team has more of an advantage as scoring a goal requires more precision than defending

Now when it's 6 on 4 I think teams should get more aggressive. Being one man short you can at least take away all the passing lanes (4 on 5 or 5 on 6) but being 2 men short, there really isnt a viable strategy other than force it away from the slot. The icing factor does help somewhat but it isn't a good enough trade off; they have to get the puck, have a lane to clear it and get there first. I've only seen this sort of thing experimented with once; around 1998 Mike Keenan was coaching Vancouver against toronto. He was down by 1 or 2 and 3 separate times in the 3rd period pulled the goalie when on the powerplay. The first two games he put the goalie back in on the fly when the penalty ended. Third time he got scored on.


Now a rarity; 6 on 3. Despite what they say, referees are less likely to call a penalty on a team already short handed and less likely to call a penalty late in a close game so combine those factors and you'd be lucky to see a team finish a one goal game 2 men short once every 100 games. But as brought up, what would the natural odds be? Would it be beneficial for a team with a 2 man advantage in a tie game scenario to do it? Well probably not with a loser point; if its in the third, they wouldnt be wise to gamble away that 1 point for 2 when they still have OT and a shootout to get that second point. If its in OT, they'd lose their point if scored on with the goalie out. But if your question is simply which team is more likely to score a goal in a 3 on 6 scenario? I kind of think it would be the team with 6. There's no possible way to defend that without hoping for dumb luck. Think of all the different plays and strategies the offensive team can design for that? If they put 4 men deep and 2 on the point, the defenders would have to choose between either covering 1 point man and leaving 2 men alone in the slot or leaving 1 man open in the slot and both point men. If I was coaching and losing in the 3rd at any point I would probably pull my goalie with a 2 man advantage.

leeaf83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2012, 10:59 AM
  #72
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,994
vCash: 500
Left Defenseman

Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
Perhaps I'm not explaining this clearly. Let me rephrase.

On a normal faceoff on the left side, there one is player on the left wing against the boards. If there are only a few seconds on the clock, the opposing winger ties up his stick and steps into his hip, preventing access to a quick shot.

Pull the goaltender. Put a second forward immediately behind that LW. Preferably a RHS. On the faceoff, the first LW intentionally accepts contact from the defender. The second forward now steps into the circle free and clear, right-handed shot positioned to pick up even a loose puck let alone a draw win. No new obstructions are created in the shooting lanes. If the defense chooses to stack two defensemen on the LW in response, you have new options elsewhere.

There is, literally, no good reason not to do it. It can only increase your chance of scoring.
The offensive left defenseman offers the same option with the added advantages of forward movement increasing shot velocity, and not telegraphing the strategy or shooting lane..

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2012, 11:01 AM
  #73
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,794
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Simply not putting a 200+ lb obstacle on the ice avoids the problem completely. Which is why the coaches are in the NHL.
The player is only an obstacle if the the player puts himself in a position that makes him an obstacle. You're suggesting that no matter where he is on the ice, he's an obstacle?

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2012, 11:05 AM
  #74
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,794
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Simply not putting a 200+ lb obstacle on the ice avoids the problem completely. Which is why the coaches are in the NHL.
This is doubly ridiculous because it assumes having a player between you and the net makes it less likely that you'll score. Apparently coaches had better start telling their players to get away from the front of the net when their teammates are shooting. Sure, the goaltender might get a better view of the shot and all that, but at least the shooter will be more likely to get his shot through.

Think about the implications of what you're saying: that screening a shot is a bad idea.

Yes, a player might get in the way of the shot. But he might also screen the goalie. Given the tendency for NHL coaches to focus on traffic in front of the net, I suspect the latter benefit outweighs the former drawback.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2012, 11:38 AM
  #75
leeaf83
Registered User
 
leeaf83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,881
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to leeaf83 Send a message via Yahoo to leeaf83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
This is doubly ridiculous because it assumes having a player between you and the net makes it less likely that you'll score. Apparently coaches had better start telling their players to get away from the front of the net when their teammates are shooting. Sure, the goaltender might get a better view of the shot and all that, but at least the shooter will be more likely to get his shot through.

Think about the implications of what you're saying: that screening a shot is a bad idea.

Yes, a player might get in the way of the shot. But he might also screen the goalie. Given the tendency for NHL coaches to focus on traffic in front of the net, I suspect the latter benefit outweighs the former drawback.
I can tell you being a goalie all my life I would LOVE if the other team had a mentality than fewer offensive players the better. This concept applies for goalies and defense alike; awareness. If an attacking player is in the offensive zone and I'm the goalie I need to be aware of him. He could get the puck and shoot, therefore i need to get tabs on him. Like you just mentioned, it's possible his job is there to make my job miserable and harder to see the puck. And if that is his job, he's probably going to be facing the shooter and get out of the way at the right time with the shot going. I'll take a clear view of the point over the chance that offensive guy might make a save for me any day of the week. So simple math indicates if there's 6 attackers in the zone, thats 20% more work for me mentally as a goalie than 5. It also increases the chance of a one timer or tip (both of which I dont care to face) if the puck carrier has 5 teammates than 4.

leeaf83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:30 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.