Law Goalie

The main reason I wear a full cage whenever I skate out (very rarely) is that I know I don't have the wherewithal to play without one, and I don't play at a high enough level to trust the sensibility of the players on the ice with me.

Gustavsson is starting to show major frustration. It seems to be (erroneously) self-directed at this point, which means it's just a matter of time before he 1) holds himself responsible for goals that aren't his fault all the time, and cracks himself with mental strain, or 2) starts to blame the team, whether he keeps it to himself or not. I would be stunned to see him re-sign in Toronto. I would not be at all surprised to see him start chucking baleful glances and sticks at his D like Aubin did in the McCabe days.

That was an incredible shootout move by Bergeron. I know it looked good, but that's a really, really hard fake to pull off against a goalie like Pavelec who uses the European Y. Great to see him getting his feet back under him.

But is that for 'stick-and-puck', or for semi-organised 5-on-5 shinny with goalies?

For a second, I thought it was live-action Super Mario Bros. Hockey...

Yeah, that really is more an issue of who's in the skate than how many are.

Really? I mean, they wouldn't have had Kessel until early this week anyway... bad run of injuries and some weak performances have hurt them, but are we at the demolition phase? 15 games in, amidst a pack of seven teams with four points (or eight within 5, if we count Florida)...

If it weren't for the concussions, I'd be able to agree with you. :( There are times I can't tell my ass from my elbow; so I spend all day, like Rodin's Thinker, sitting on my elbow until I figure it out.

Yeah... I was getting close to Pythagorean numerology there for a minute... senex mathematicus.

I guess where I'm getting confused is that I *had* thought that (somehow) the width AND depth of the flat were being controlled independently - which of course makes no sense given the physics of the spinner. Thanks to the diagrams and repeated explanation, I think I get it now. The spinner is a trapezoid in profile with a flat of X width (90, 100, etc.) at its peak, and sides sloping at angle Theta. The sharpener can 'push' this flat and those angled sides a certain distance into the blade (75, 50, etc.), creating Y depth. However, these depths are calculated based on a constant blade-width of ~.110"; thus, on a wider blade, the sharpener effectively has to push that flat of X width deeper into the blade in order to make the sides slope all the way to the edge of the wider blade. So, in the end, FBV does have the same effect as ROH on a wider blade: the flat and bite-angle remain constant, but the depth increases as the shape (whether trapezoid or circle) is pushed further into the blade, creating taller edges. So, in other words, goalies should generally stick to X/50 shapes, since their sides are going to be deeper anyway, unless they really want to be on the rails. Cheers guys - I think I've got a handle on this: 100/50 for me, and a possible hold-out for 110/50 or whatever the new shape turns out to be. This also tracks nicely with the estimations that 100/50 bites like 1/2-5/8", given the traditional 1/8" increase for the same hollow on goalie skates. All is right and well in the universe.

I'm pretty sure JR said that he had put shapes into goalie blades with the same spinners. Guys have discussed it in the goalie forum, too, and their shops don't seem to have a different set of spinners. I mean, either way, the spinner is a trapzoid that's going to cut a flat-bottom 100- or 90-thousandths wide and however deep, no matter the width of the blade. Your two extreme cases make perfect sense, but the V-profile is a little misleading, since it would effectively be a 0/75 FBV, throwing out one of the two variables. That's why it would create the same angle on blades of whatever width, I think. If you cut a V into the middle of a rectangle, no matter the size, the angles remain constant. Ah, but I think I see what you're saying, now. If you cut a trapezoid into a rectangle wider than it was made for, you end up with this: _ |_/ \_| ----- as opposed to this, on the normal width: _ |/ \| There would be two small flat spots on either side of the flat-bottom V, instead of two fangs to dig into the ice. Yet I don't think that's what is going on, in practise, or no goalie would be able to skate on FBV currently. If you start with the edges of the blades as your reference points (rather than the middle of the blade, where the imaginary V would come together), and cut from those edges a trapezoid with a flat-top of X width and Y-depth in the middle, you end up with two the FBV fangs, but a shallower angle relative to the edges of the blades.

I believe that's a CAG profile. I have the same profile as Brent Johnson on my player skates (65/130), which is funny because it was total trial-and-error on my part. The shop called CAG because they didn't know what hell to do with somebody who wanted a goalie profile on player skate, and the response was utterly unhelpful. The Pens' EQM must have figured it out for him.

That's what I don't get. With the blade-width as a constant (.110), widening the flat-bottom sharpens bite-angle; deepening the flat-bottom sharpens bite-angle; hence 100/75 feels 'sharper' than 100/50, and 90/75, and 90/50, and so on. Widening the blade itself, while keeping the same flat-bottom width and depth as constants (100/75 for argument's sake), would appear to significantly DECREASE the bite-angle. Understanding that I could be way, way off-base here, it seems that keeping the same FBV shape on a wider blade has exactly the opposite effect of keeping the same ROH on a wider blade. My head hurts. I'm going back to Aristophanes, where everything makes sense... edit: I think I may have misunderstood you, jcp. By 'deeper', you meant that the fangs would have a longer hypotenuse (ie. inside of the edge) on a wider blade with the same shape. This is certainly true. That being said, the actual depth and width would remain constants; the angle itself would appear to be shallower, but with a longer surface on the inside of the blade on which to work, as you observe. I'm just not sure how this will work in practise.

I'm still stunned that Fleury is on 3/4 - especially given that he's using the thinner 9K blades, which effectively makes it 13/16-7/8. His edge control is berserk. And Jay McKee on V2 blades? LOL

Quoting an earlier question (which seemed to go unanswered) because I've got one of my own re: blade width and how it relates to FBV. Please forgive my atrophied geometry... We were talking about FBV for goalies in the specific forum, and JR mentioned that Blackstone was working on a few goalie-specific shapes, namely one that offered a flat-bottom of between 110 and 115 to correspond to the wider goalie blade (about .160" as opposed to .110" for player blades), and that this would make shuffling across the edges easier. Where I'm getting lost, as I read more about FBV, is how the width of the blade changes the effective bite-angle. With ROH, of course, a goalie blade is effectively 1/8" deeper than a player blade done at the same hollow, so that 1/2" on a goalie blade feels deeper than 1/2" on a player blade; if to have equivalence, the player blade would need to be cut to 5/8". I'm still not sure how a wider blade will translate in bite-angle with the two FBV variables, and I don't think my trig is up to figuring it out. I'm doubly confused by the suggestion that a wider flat-bottom will make shuffling easier, since widening the flat-bottom on a normal blade (say, 100/75 vs 90/75) makes the bite-angle considerably sharper. Basically, all I'm looking for is the FBV equivalent to 1/2" on a goalie blade. With that as a baseline, it should be pretty comprehensible from there. I have a strong suspicion that FBV has the potential to be even more important to goalies than it is to skaters - I'm just not not sure where to begin.

Some guys are very particular about wanting to warm their feet and knees up more than their hands. In my salad days, I used to warm up my hands with an India-rubber ball for a good fifteen minutes before going on the ice, and soccer/hackey-sack doesn't really translate well to goalie-specific movement, so I did ask for predominantly low shots in the warmup. A low-shot warmup is also useful because the vast majority of shots come to the bottom third of the net, and produce the most dangerous rebounds. There are other goalies who ask to be hit with the puck - ie. midline shots only - so they can get their core rebound control up to speed. Personally, nothing beat a few quick games of "Juice Boy," (point-screen, half-board walk-out, goal-line jam, behind-the-net) or as it's come to be known when less healthful substances predominate, "Beer Bitch." That said, flipping out on a new guy who doesn't know the warmup routine is a bit thick. The only time I ever lost it was when some clown tagged me in the back of the neck - puck to bare skin - during the warmup for an exhibition game, when I was facing a simulated 3-on-2 and he was just dicking around to the side. He got a mouthful of blocker, then got cut by the team after the game. Arsehead.

We ran a guy out of our Friday game for that. After a year's worth of apologizing and begging, he played again last week. I've told them: I don't care if you load up on me, but don't do it to anyone else.

I used to coach the goalies on my sister's AAA team, and they were bar none the dirtiest hockey players I have ever seen in terms of stickwork. Watching the odd women's varsity scrimmage has only reconfirmed this. We also have a girl on the Law team this year - good player and a real sweetheart - but I've seen her carve into guys with as little care or concern as she might slice tenderloin.

If Richards hit him shoulder-to-shoulder, I have no problem at all with that hit, and it would have been punishing. He attacked the head of a defenseless player, and put him at risk of serious injury: suspension.

+1 to that. I've said those exact words when pulling myself from a game.

Been hit three times in 4 games wearing the mask. Didn't really hurt at all, my ears did ring though for about a minute or so. Plus I play in beginner's league 5v5 league, nobody really has a shot that's going to hurt me. Sorry mate - didn't mean to offend, just a knee-jerk reflex on my part. But seriously, for safety's sake - catch anything you can that's coming at your face, and be EXTREMELY careful with bad-angle shots, even if they're weak. Taking one in the side of the head could be very bad.

Looking good - but please don't get hit in the head with that salad bowl. :(

He's still making very odd decisions with his feet.

Very cool - who was their goalie coach back then? edit: Just noticed the mask - wow. Is it a Harrison?

He's a bit brittle, but he stayed healthy last year and he'll fill the minutes that need filling - and I can't think of another defenceman who scored 14 goals last year who you could get for $750k.