Law Goalie

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.

Absolutely. And just when he was getting back up to speed in Carolina... I still think his return was what pushed the Canes over the top against Edmonton. That took enormous balls.

Given that he actually broke Cole's leg, there may be a suspension. That was a vicious, vicious hit.

My only question is this: would they have got a player of Kessel's calibre - let alone his offensive skillset - with any of those picks? I'm not sure.

Granted, but bear in mind that the Leafs are now roughly where Washington was four years ago - and the Leafs haven't had the benefit of first (Ovechkin) and fourth (Backstrom) overall picks, nor of being able to draft anyone as good as Semin 13th or Green 27th. Kadri is the first hint of any such talent; Stahlberg is great, but probably comparable to Brooks Laich in the final analysis. All I can say is that I wish the Leafs had been thinner on the blueline and made a bigger play for Matt Gilroy. They'd be a much more dangerous team.

I'm sorry to say I've seen little of the B's preseason and season - how's Sturm looking so far?

Haha - but did you notice him "Doing the Kayak" on a couple of rushes in the first - two hands on the stick, swinging it around over his shoulders? That nickname may stick...

Exelby would be grabbed in heartbeat. Finger... maybe have to wait for re-entry waivers mid-season. I'm pretty excited for the Marlies this year, too. It's a very nice convenience to be able to stumble out the door and catch a decent pro hockey game in a nice rink any old time. And I have to say, this is the first time in a long time I have any intention of watching Leafs' games voluntarily.

That was not necessarily a good way to end the pre-season... they looked like the Leafs of the last two years, hanging goalies out to dry and actually creating more scoring chances against than they prevented. On the other hand, maybe Wilson decided to let them play fast and loose just for the hell of it: it's a meaningless game, he wants them to have some fun playing pond hockey, etc. They're playing paintball for the rest of the week anyway... Toskala looked pissed off in a "Did we just get McCabe back on waivers," kind of way - just like J.S. Aubin when he chucked his stick over the net at McCabe in disgust. That could be a good signs or a very bad sign; depends entirely on the nature of his optimal arousal level. The one that snuck through his armpit in the previous game was a total and culpable mental lapse on his part, as were a couple of last night's. Having said that, I would cut the guy some slack, given that he didn't play for the last quarter of last season, had the whole offseason off-ice, and hasn't had a lot of work in the preseason. Gustavsson, by comparison, played all the way through the SEL finals, and had a healthy, productive off-season. It's incredibly impressive that he came back so quickly after the heart surgery - minor or not, that's an impressive athlete psychology at work - but he's much sharper than Toskala right now.

Those are sexy. I absolutely love Brian's blockers (lightest on the market for *years*, and way ahead of their time in using mesh gussets and other small material advances) but I cannot even put one of their gloves on my hands. The break, the thumb angle, the strapping... just feel WRONG.