Broken sticks

[ChilliBilly]

A pet peeve of mine, which we saw today, is how players handle a broken stick.

There are 3 situations of interest, 5 on 5, 5 on 4 and 5 on 3. Obviously if you have the man advantage you just go get a new stick.

If a D man breaks a stick, a forward usually gives him one. Regardless, they then run around without a stick trying to either block shots or tie someone up either against the boards or by hitting them.

My preference would be to tell forwards, in either 5 on 5 or 5 on 4 to head to the bench to get a new stick as soon as they can, and leave it up to the guys on the ice to deal with. I have seen the team go 40 seconds with a guy without a stick and the other team pass it around at will, particularly on the PP.

The advantage of getting a new stick is:

1 - the maximum time with a player at a disadvantage is probably about 10 seconds.

2 - the other team has to be aware that someone is behind them who, if they get the puck out, has a chance for a breakaway. This will cause the other team to have to have at least one guy backing away from the play a bit within 2 - 3 seconds to watch for the guy behind.

5 on 3 .... you are screwed either way.

Comments please.

Click to read more...

 

[PG Canuck]

When you break your stick, and you're on a PP and rush to the bench, you put your team down 5 on 3. At least when you stay out there with no stick, you can stick get in the lanes, but not as effectively as you can with a stick. When you're 5 on 5, I think you could possibly take the chance, but I still believe you can take away lanes and help get the puck out even without a stick.

An example I bring up would be last season when the Canucks were on a powerplay in OT, Oshie broke his stick, rushes to the bench, and before he gets back the Canucks scored to win the game. As soon as he left, it opened up a lane for the pass to get through to set up the goal. He may or may not have blocked it had he stayed there with no stick, there's no evidence to support it either way, but had he stayed there, he could've prevented such an easy pass to get through.

 

[Wheatley]

I remember the Canucks played a game against someone last year I think, maybe two years ago, and they had a 4 on 3 powerplay in overtime. A dude on the other team broke his stick and went to the bench to get a new one, and the Canucks immediately scored to win the game.

It was pretty funny.

EDIT: and apparently just beaten to it ^^

 

[Pip]

I remember the Canucks played a game against someone last year I think, maybe two years ago, and they had a 4 on 3 powerplay in overtime. A dude on the other team broke his stick and went to the bench to get a new one, and the Canucks immediately scored to win the game.

It was pretty funny.

I was trying to find the video to post, but I forget what team it was against

 

[TheDiver*]

I remember the Canucks played a game against someone last year I think, maybe two years ago, and they had a 4 on 3 powerplay in overtime. A dude on the other team broke his stick and went to the bench to get a new one, and the Canucks immediately scored to win the game.

It was pretty funny.

That was T.J. Oshie. You can hear the Stl bench yelling "Osh, Osh!" for him to come to the bench.

This was the goal:

 

[PG Canuck]

I remember the Canucks played a game against someone last year I think, maybe two years ago, and they had a 4 on 3 powerplay in overtime. A dude on the other team broke his stick and went to the bench to get a new one, and the Canucks immediately scored to win the game.

It was pretty funny.

EDIT: and apparently just beaten to it ^^

I was trying to find the video to post, but I forget what team it was against

It was against St. Louis. Oshie broke his stick, and the bench was actually calling him to come get a stick, and the Canucks scored before he even got back (or possibly to the bench even). The look on his face was pretty funny, IIRC.

 

[Wheatley]

Thanks for the video post. Good times.

 

[TheDiver*]

It cost the Canucks too on the PK.


I believe this is Malhotra:

 

[Fat Tony]

My preference would be to tell forwards, in either 5 on 5 or 5 on 4 to head to the bench to get a new stick as soon as they can, and leave it up to the guys on the ice to deal with.

Getting a new stick will take as much time as a player change.

 

[Johnny Canucker]

Disagree with OP.

Going to get a stick would open up a huge gap somewhere. Better to defend with no stick especially as a firward.

 

[Aphid Attraction]

I'm glad this topic came up, I have all ways wondered why the defender just drops the stick when it breaks? Surely it would be better to use half a stick to block a passing lane or sweep the puck around the net, or is that not allowed?

 

[timw33]

I'm glad this topic came up, I have all ways wondered why the defender just drops the stick when it breaks? Surely it would be better to use half a stick to block a passing lane or sweep the puck around the net, or is that not allowed?

That is an instant penalty.

 

[Golden Boy]

I'm glad this topic came up, I have all ways wondered why the defender just drops the stick when it breaks? Surely it would be better to use half a stick to block a passing lane or sweep the puck around the net, or is that not allowed?

It's a penalty.

 

[Aphid Attraction]

That is an instant penalty.

It's a penalty.

Cool thanks

 

[JA]

Cool thanks

Playing with a broken stick is a penalty.

Placing a discarded stick in the way of the opposing puck carrier, meanwhile, i.e. tossing it in the way or sliding it in the way (whether broken or intact), would result in a penalty shot. This happened to the Canucks in 2008 in a game against Washington. The Capitals were awarded a penalty shot, and the team selected Michael Nylander to shoot. The only play the broken stick recipient can make is to drop the stick.

2:33 of the video:


This was also the Canucks TV Pay-Per-View broadcast in which the "7th Man" teaser was first aired.

 

[biturbo19]

I think a better strategy would be for some of our guys who frequently break sticks (Edler?) to wear a quiver of spare sticks on their back like Robin Hood.

 

[Wheatley]

I think a better strategy would be for some of our guys who frequently break sticks (Edler?) to wear a quiver of spare sticks on their back like Robin Hood.

One of those magic ones Elves use that never seem to run out of arrows.

 

[Taelin]

I think a better strategy would be for some of our guys who frequently break sticks (Edler?) to wear a quiver of spare sticks on their back like Robin Hood.

Would bring a whole new meaning to Burrows' bow and arrow celebration.

 

[RandV]

When you break your stick, and you're on a PP and rush to the bench, you put your team down 5 on 3. At least when you stay out there with no stick, you can stick get in the lanes, but not as effectively as you can with a stick. When you're 5 on 5, I think you could possibly take the chance, but I still believe you can take away lanes and help get the puck out even without a stick.

An example I bring up would be last season when the Canucks were on a powerplay in OT, Oshie broke his stick, rushes to the bench, and before he gets back the Canucks scored to win the game. As soon as he left, it opened up a lane for the pass to get through to set up the goal. He may or may not have blocked it had he stayed there with no stick, there's no evidence to support it either way, but had he stayed there, he could've prevented such an easy pass to get through.

Well two things here to support the OP's argument, first this was OT where it's 4 on 4, and as everyone knows a 4 on 3 advantage is greater than 5 on 4. OP didn't cover 4 on 4 but you could stick with a 'only do it 5 on 5' strategy.

Second, the Oshie goal against is anecdotal evidence. Of course a player leaving the play to grab a stick could lead to a goal against. Just like a player staying on the ice without the stick could lead to sustained pressure in their own end that I'm sure has resulted in many goals.

Both situations can get you scored against, the real question is which one is preferable. Personally I think if it was 5 on 5 you're better going to the bench, but only if you're linemates are aware of what's going on and cover or you.

 

[RobertKron]

Well two things here to support the OP's argument, first this was OT where it's 4 on 4, and as everyone knows a 4 on 3 advantage is greater than 5 on 4. OP didn't cover 4 on 4 but you could stick with a 'only do it 5 on 5' strategy.

Second, the Oshie goal against is anecdotal evidence. Of course a player leaving the play to grab a stick could lead to a goal against. Just like a player staying on the ice without the stick could lead to sustained pressure in their own end that I'm sure has resulted in many goals.

Both situations can get you scored against, the real question is which one is preferable. Personally I think if it was 5 on 5 you're better going to the bench, but only if you're linemates are aware of what's going on and cover or you.

Obviously it is, but that pass doesn't get made if he stays there. Sure, they may have pressured and scored eventually, but you also can't say that they wouldn't have done so even if he had a stick. That particular play for the goal, though, happened because he left for the bench. Had he been on the ice, they'd have been passing the puck directly through him.

 

[M A K A V E L I*]

If you're on the side where the bench is closer to your defensive zone, you should almost always go grab a new stick.

Also, I don't like when players dump the puck in for a line change. They should pass back to a teammate, get a couple of guys changed, retain possession of the puck and then get the puck carrier changed if he needs to.

 

[Smokey McCanucks]

I hate those damn composite sticks, never have felt right to me. I remember my d-bag buddy had one in a road hockey game, he was leaning on it too hard and it broke and he fell, there goes $200! I'll stay with the wood, thanks.

 

[Scott Hall]

2 points...

1) I think once coaches start using it with moderate success, players will start going to the bench for a stick IF their bench is on the defensive side.

2) Forget composite sticks and wood sticks... go back to aluminum!

 

[Timmy]

I hate those damn composite sticks, never have felt right to me. I remember my d-bag buddy had one in a road hockey game, he was leaning on it too hard and it broke and he fell, there goes $200! I'll stay with the wood, thanks.

I have no inherent problems with composite sticks. However, given the stick's short shelf-lives I'd like to see most Canucks get a new one every period. Use the used ones for practices, charity draws, whatever, but most players should be starting each period with a brand new stick if they play significant minutes.

 

[Fat Tony]

Well two things here to support the OP's argument, first this was OT where it's 4 on 4, and as everyone knows a 4 on 3 advantage is greater than 5 on 4. OP didn't cover 4 on 4 but you could stick with a 'only do it 5 on 5' strategy.

Second, the Oshie goal against is anecdotal evidence. Of course a player leaving the play to grab a stick could lead to a goal against. Just like a player staying on the ice without the stick could lead to sustained pressure in their own end that I'm sure has resulted in many goals.

Both situations can get you scored against, the real question is which one is preferable. Personally I think if it was 5 on 5 you're better going to the bench, but only if you're linemates are aware of what's going on and cover or you.

More anecdotal evidence from today: Chicago scored a 5 on 5 goal when Cammalleri left to replace a broken stick with the Hawks having possession in the Flames' end.