Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Ah, I missed the ‘two’.
Yeah, I don’t wanna run/play a game for two hours. 1 1/2 hours would be okay, although I’m happy with the timing the way it is personally, short and sweet. I’d rather have more teams than more time per game.
Ryan,
"Kyle":1ggb1us3 wrote:Jason raises ‘stop time’. ….. So if we make games two hours long, they’ll cost twice as much. Even if there’s twice as much ice time, I’m not sure I’d want to pay $20/game.[/quote:1ggb1us3]I assumed Jason was meaning to keep the game length the same, just play stop time instead of running time. So you’d need to reduce the ‘official’ length of each period to compensate.
Cy and Kurt used to run the DIHL with stop-time in the last two minutes if the scores were within one point which they felt prevented last minute stalling by teams.Ryan,
"Jason":2m631xsr wrote:I like your idea, but after you get rid of the A players, wouldn’t you be lacking enough teams to split?[/quote:2m631xsr]Not really, we could have stretched to 7 teams in the B-grade this time, and there’s usually more players at the start of the year, so 8+ is a reasonable expectation for 2007 I think. Although it depends on what the schools teams do, they have a big effect on numbers.
"Jason":2m631xsr wrote:Also an idea for next year to get the clock stopped as soon as the refs call a penalty or goal, or even if say 15 seconds have passed, just to save wasted game time. That or run stop time games, which is plausible if say you booked two hours a game, and if after the first two periods the game is going to go late then run the clock on the last period.[/quote:2m631xsr]That could work, but makes scheduling difficult. It’s definitely an option though, I’m not sure how much of an effect it has on scheduling as I haven’t played too many stop time games before. The other option to prevent time wastage would be to ask the refs to be extremely harsh on teams wasting time.
"Jason":2m631xsr wrote:I would also suggest working a system with the arena where the DIHL pays so much at the beginning and so long as the ice isn’t booked the DIHL can have access without having to pay each time, thus eliminating paying by the hour, and just pay a flat fee for the year. Although this is probably difficult to work, it would allow teams to organise practices, or run extra games, etc…Otherwise maybe arrange for the arena to offer a year pass, so it wouldn’t cost players $10 a time, which for some is 50 + a week, and would allow free run of public skating etc.[/quote:2m631xsr]
I doubt the rink would like the idea. But it’s worth asking them.
"Jason":2m631xsr wrote:Would it be possible to run a Skate and Shoot session, effectively a public skate session where you can bring on a stick and a puck and practice your shots, or just play around with the puck, many players don’t get the opportunity to play with the puck during games and this would give them a chance and raise confidence, skills etc….[/quote:2m631xsr]I think public sessions for hockey is a good idea, they did that at the Christchurch roller rink and it was quite popular. I particularly like the idea of combining this with a regular public skating session held on the curling rink, as it would be a great chance to try and recruit some public skaters who we could just drag over to the main rink.
Ryan,
Yeah, I noticed that was very common in Canada.
The issue I did notice in Canada though was that it made it fairly difficult for beginners to get into the sport as there were always good players recruited on to the weaker teams, dragging those weaker teams up a few notches. This made it difficult for new players to join which is why we hadn’t gone down that route for the DIHL. I think that’s the approach for other most other sports in Dunedin. We have another issue with the DIHL in that we don’t have huge numbers of teams, 12 would have been the most we could have gotten this season I think. Heaps of teams would make a team ranking system a lot easier. It does have a lot of merit though, and definitely makes organising things a lot simpler.
That’s basically what I was suggesting above, but only within the B-grade, so the top tier for the A-grade would be kept out and the B/C grade would have graded teams.
There’s a billion different ways of doing this so keep the ideas flowing! Last season we got almost no input on anything so this is terrific!
Ryan,
Welcome to the forum Justin <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smiley.gif" alt="
” title=”Smiley” />You seem to know a lot about the intracacies of hockey than most, perhaps you should become a ref too?
Ryan,
PS: I’m assuming this is Justin Bigg?
"Kyle":25abzs24 wrote:The other is the larger the number of grades, the smaller the range of acceptable abilities in order to fit into a grade. So instead of 1-5/6-10, the split becomes 1-3/4-6/7-10 (for example)…..
a lot might struggle to get a whole team fitting into a grade range of only 3 numbers.[/quote:25abzs24]
There are a few options to help eleviate this problem. There has been a fairly big difference this season between the likes of John McGlashan and some of the other teams, my team (Bullfrogs) got whipped 13-1 and there have been a few similar games in the B-grade. This is despite our team have a couple of players who are just as good as many of the John McGlashan players. So you don’t necessarily need different gradings for different grades. Both C and B-grade could use gradings <5.
If there were 8 teams, then no one would necessarily have to sign up for say a C or B-grade, but once the season was underway and a pecking order was achieved then the grade could be split into seperate divisions, the top 4 teams in the top division, next 4 in the bottom division. That way the best teams would play each other, and the lower placed teams would play the lower ranked teams.
Alternatively the division for the teams could be decided before the season.
Or, and this would be my choice, the division a team starts in for the season would be decided before the start and depending on how the points worked out, teams could be promoted or relegated mis-season. A longer season would certainly help the promotion/relegation system work a bit better.
So basically, a B-grade with two seperate divisions, it could be called something different, B or C-grade, or A-grade could be called Premier, B-grade called A-grade and C-grade called B-grade (ChCh system) or whatever suits.
Just an idea.
Ryan,
Some stats on the website for October 2006:
424 Unique visitors
1145 Total Number of visits
7542 PagesSome stats on the website since we moved to http://www.dunedinicehockey.hellyer.kiwi (28th April 2006 till now):
1860 Unique visitors
4541 Total Number of visits
35765 Pages
20.3 % of all users browse via FirefoxSheesh, this thing sure is getting busy! Good to see you guys are making use of it!
Ryan,
Ah, I was wondering what your last name was. I didn’t seem to have a copy of it anywhere, I guess coz you signed up late.
"Chris":1eogo68s wrote:P.S. Do you ever get called Ryan “Hell Yer!” Hellyer?[/quote:1eogo68s]Sometimes! Along with helicopter, hellman and a bunch of other stuff.
Ryan,
"guest":1qubj231 wrote:I think heplayers are mature enough to play it.[/quote:1qubj231]I think most are, it seems to be a matter of weeding out those that aren’t though which could be tricky. At any rate I can’t take a hit anyway, I got anihilated a few times last year by even clean hits but still ended up out of action for a few days so won’t be trying contact hockey again – well that’s the plan anyway <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/tongue.gif" alt="
” title=”Tongue” />"guest":1qubj231 wrote:I think the comment made about players being more agro in contact is complete BS.[/quote:1qubj231]In my experience some people seem to get mega agro as soon as they’re allowed to hit cleanly. Once they’re allowed to hit cleanly they seem to decide that elbows, cross checks and everything else under the sun are acceptable. Also, the whole mid check, throwing arms up and shoving you into the boards is a little perturbing. Luckilly (well, not really) I’m usually an easy target so I generally get dealt clean hits but I saw some shockers in the SK8 Cup last year and a bunch in the Cadbury Cup.
Still, there seems to be a demand for it, so some sort of competition for those want to smash into each other would be good for them. But I’ll just be spectating <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smiley.gif" alt="
” title=”Smiley” />Ryan,
Sounds like you’re all taking this too seriously.
How ’bout we end this.Ryan,
PS: welcome to the forum Hanffy
We were short on players for the A-grade, and Jack was at the top of the B-grade group so got to play both grades.
Plus he’s a team manager so he get’s special treatment <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smiley.gif" alt="
” title=”Smiley” />So far, myself, Jack, Jason Sedgwick, Nick Reymond and Mark Dudley (goalie) have played in both grades. Antony Blackett played in goal in A-grade and out in B-grade.
Ryan,
Wow, the forum really seems to be taking off now that the season is over! Four people online right now and lots of heated debate going on. We should make sure we don’t go offending anyone though, anyone can read this after all.
Ryan,
I’m actually worried some people may get offended by stuff in there. Particularly the refs who I’ve been trying hard not to slag off (failing on occasion). Phil seemed a little heated before.
Ryan,
"Chris":w2iv738m wrote:The other thing we do have to consider is the possibility that there’s a [i:w2iv738m]good[/i:w2iv738m] reason for women not playing contact hockey. I’ll be damned if I know what that could be, but it might exist.[/quote:w2iv738m]Yeah, I can’t think of one either. It seems strange. Funny there aren’t any women in here arguing this point! I know one of the women was highly peeved over this, but wasn’t willing to approach the committee about it.
Ryan,
