 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Canada rules at Hockey
|
|
|
Subject: Canada rules at Hockey From: GUEST,Canuck Date: 25 Feb 02 - 04:46 AM How about those hockey games? :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada rules at Hockey From: gnu Date: 25 Feb 02 - 06:28 AM A few comments were placed on the Cdn women's hockey thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada rules at Hockey From: Les from Hull Date: 25 Feb 02 - 11:31 AM Actually, it's called ice hockey, isn't it? Hockey is quite a different game, having a World Cup in Kuala Lumpar at the moment, but without a Canadian team. Congratulations to the Canadian Ice Hockey teams, though! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada rules at Hockey From: RichM Date: 25 Feb 02 - 12:22 PM In Canada, any reference to "ice" is superfluous :)
Rich McCarthy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada rules at Hockey From: Steve Latimer Date: 25 Feb 02 - 01:26 PM Les, That would be Field Hockey that you are referring to. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada rules at Hockey From: Mrrzy Date: 25 Feb 02 - 02:15 PM My country isn't a country, it's winter My path is not a path, it's snow ... goes my favorite Canadian song, roughly translated... and I was rooting for them all along, don't see why anybody South of them should ever win on the ice. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada rules at Hockey From: Les from Hull Date: 25 Feb 02 - 02:58 PM Steve - I even call it lawn tennis to differentiate it from the 'real' game. Just don't get me going about football! I think that we Brits who invented these games should get to decide what they are called. Like that 'World Series' they have for rounders! At least it would compensate us slightly for never winning any of them! 'Field Hockey', forsooth! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada rules at Hockey From: Irish sergeant Date: 25 Feb 02 - 03:31 PM Congradulations to the Canadian Ice Hockey team on a superbly played series of games and a splendid game yesterday. (damn it all!) That game was what hockey is at its best! Kindest regards, Neil (A yank who just knows his Canadian grandfather is cheering like mad in Heaven.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada rules at Hockey From: gnu Date: 25 Feb 02 - 03:49 PM Big thread creep here..., speaking of real football, rugby, (although I suppose I'll still get shit from the soccer fans) someone from Oz, or maybe Les ?... what's with this bonus point in the first round of the Super Twelve ? I was watching the Reds and Brumbies on Sunday and they kept talking about this bonus point, but I must have missed the explantion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada rules at Hockey From: kendall Date: 25 Feb 02 - 07:53 PM Canadians rule at hockey? So, what else is new? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada rules at Hockey From: Wolfgang Date: 26 Feb 02 - 05:21 AM Just a short trivia question for our North American friends. The official international federation in that sport we are talking about here is the IIHF The first 'I' stands for 'International'. You have three guesses what the second 'I' stands for. (grin)
(The other Olympic sport's international federation is the FIH; no, the 'F' doesn't stand for 'field') Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada rules at Hockey From: Willie-O Date: 26 Feb 02 - 10:11 AM Yeah, well, we rule in street hockey too. I had to work till 4 Sunday afternoon, went to my favourite pub for the 3rd period, what a great scene that was. More hullabaloo than we see on Canada Day. In fact, Kendall, that was our first men's Olympic gold in our national sport in exactly 50 years. And some members of the 1952 team were there to see it. W-O
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada rules at Hockey From: baywop Date: 26 Feb 02 - 06:14 PM We are happy that you Europeans have your quirky little names for things. Shall we change the NHL to the NIHL? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada rules at Hockey From: Willie-O Date: 26 Feb 02 - 08:10 PM The NHL needs to change more than just its name. Which of course doesn't make any sense any more, since it started as Canada's National Hockey League and spread south such that the vast majority of teams are now from American cities. There was much talk about why these were great hockey games, and it wasn't just the teams and and passion. They moved the game right along, no commercial breaks, no long pauses before face-offs, just get in there and play. And no fights, cause in the Olympics that's an automatic ejection from the game. You had to put the passsion into the playing of the game, that's what made it great. But yes, those Euros do have quaint ideas of what are significant sports! W-O |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada rules at Hockey From: Steve Latimer Date: 26 Feb 02 - 10:24 PM Willie-O, Wasn't it great not having the 3 hour games? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada rules at Hockey From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) Date: 26 Feb 02 - 10:36 PM Olympic Hockey, Canada vs. U. S. A. : My millionaires are better than your millionaires. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada rules at Hockey From: Les from Hull Date: 27 Feb 02 - 08:30 AM Baywop - 'quirky?' 'little?' I think that anyone who renames something that already has a name could be better described as quirky. Perhaps you North Americans could just keep the games that were invented over there. So that just leaves you with, let me see now, lacrosse? I'm glad that you lot got to see games they way that we see them, though. Games weren't designed to be divided up into little segments to fit in between the commercial breaks. I hope that you enjoy the (soccer) World Cup in Japan and South Korea in the summer. I understand that when it was in the States, the sponsors wanted to split up the play into quarters, as 45mins was too long without commercials. Willie-O - it's not just us Euros who have quaint ideas about significant sports. The rest of the world will be watching the (soccer) World Cup, including the Central and South Americos, the Africos, the Asios and the Australios! It's probably the most significant sporting event on the planet that's based on a single sport. Sorry to get grumpy. I enjoyed the Winter Olympics, and the organisation and the skills on show were superb. I even enjoyed watching that minority sport, Ice Hockey! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada rules at Hockey From: baywop Date: 27 Feb 02 - 09:04 AM My number one nominee for the quirkiest sport is......Cricket!! quirky name, quirky rules, really really quirky outfits (I can bring myself to call them uniforms) Since Ice Hockey was first played on the St. Lawrence river, albeit by a British garrison. We Canadians choose to continue to claim it as our game. I think that common usage and venacular is a better way to choose names. One of the smarter things you Brits did was NOT subject the language to strict, arbitrary definition like the French did. It is a major reason that English is the de facto international language that French has only aspired to be. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada rules at Hockey From: Les from Hull Date: 27 Feb 02 - 09:07 AM And even Canada has a national cricket team! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada rules at Hockey From: gnu Date: 27 Feb 02 - 11:00 AM We do ? Must be from Lotus Land, aka The Left Coast. Only cricket we got around here (The Right Coast) is too cold to even rub his legs together. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada rules at Hockey From: Steve Latimer Date: 27 Feb 02 - 11:09 AM News to me about the National Cricket team. I have tried to figure that game out a few times with no success. I wonder if we have a National Field Hockey team. I know that it is played here, usually by girls in high school. I don't think I've ever seen Males play it. (The grass must be hell on skate blades). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada rules at Hockey From: Wolfgang Date: 27 Feb 02 - 11:20 AM All Canadian results in hockey in Olympic summer games, men and women Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada rules at Hockey From: Murph10566 Date: 27 Feb 02 - 12:30 PM VIVA CANADA, EH ? M. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada rules at Hockey From: gnu Date: 27 Feb 02 - 12:39 PM Oh yeah, Canada has a field hockey team. Olympic tean does well often. Big in the Canusa games, of course. The PanAm's - can't recall ? I wouldn't play with them cause they're too rough for me, even with shinpads. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada rules at Hockey From: gnu Date: 27 Feb 02 - 12:45 PM Has anyone mentioned anything about the loonie and the dime buried at centre ice in Salt Lake on any of the similar threads yet ? For those who don't know about this, the guys hired to do all the ice making and care were Canucks. The guy in charge put a loonie (Cdn dollar coin) and dime in the ice at centre ice for good luck. The rumour circulated during the games but it hit the papers just yesterday, with his picture with the coins. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada rules at Hockey From: gnu Date: 27 Feb 02 - 01:08 PM Aha ! Finally, I found it. Someone on another thread said something to the effect that, "... since the first game of hockey was played on the frozen St. Lawrence River by British soldiers...". Perhaps. Perhaps NOT. It may have been adapted from Irish Hurling in Nova Scotia... http://cnet.windsor.ns.ca/Pages/Hockey/history.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada rules at Hockey From: Steve Latimer Date: 27 Feb 02 - 01:29 PM Now Hurling, that's the craziest game I've ever seen. I played both hockey and Lacrosse, both considered tough physical games. I have never seen anything as tough as Hurling.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada rules at Hockey From: Leeder Date: 27 Feb 02 - 01:47 PM I'm sure Les from Hull's tongue was planted firmly in his cheek. Anyway... Re football: Association Football begat Rugby Football, Rugby Football begat Canadian Football (likely Australian Football too, but I don't know about that), Canadian Football begat American Football (little-known fact!). All these are just called "football" by their afficionados, the other versions are given adjectives to differentiate them from the predominate version. Re hockey: In Canada the adjective "ice" is superfluous. If you say "hockey", everyone knows you mean "ice hockey". For other versions, you need to specify: "floor hockey", "field hockey", "ball hockey", "street hockey", etc. Anyone can call any of them anything they want to, but if you come to Canada, and talk about "ice hockey", people will know you're a furriner.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada rules at Hockey From: Les from Hull Date: 27 Feb 02 - 02:01 PM Yes, you've sussed me. I just love a good wind-up. All these different football games were originally just football, no rules - just our village against your village and let's beat the crap out of each other. There's still one or two of these traditional games going on in the UK, often on Boxing Day. In Hull (the one in England - I know there's one in Canada, I'd be interested in how it got its name), we've got an Ice Hockey team and an American Football Team (if they're still going) as well as Rugby Union, Rugby League, Association Football (soccer), Cricket, Hockey and every other team game you can think of. We're even the English home of Baseball (yes American-style). It's no wonder that we're crap at every single one! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada rules at Hockey From: Steve Latimer Date: 27 Feb 02 - 02:09 PM I was a member of a Canadian Hockey team that toured the U.K. years ago. We didn't play in Hull, but we did play in Streatham, Peterborough, Durham, Middlesboro, Whitley Bay, Nottingham, Murrayfield and Fife. We had a wonderful time, it was strange hearing people talk about "Ice" Hockey. I almost went over to play for the Durham Wasps. The level of hockey wasn't very good at the time (early 80's) but I understand it has improved greatly over the years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada rules at Hockey From: gnu Date: 27 Feb 02 - 02:47 PM FYI, Les, Rugby is really coming on strong here in NA. Just twenty years ago, it was played mostly by universities, with the odd private club. However, with cable and satallite TV broadcasts and the internet garnering interest, rugby is well on it's way to becoming big. The only stumbling block is how to get paid the big advertising bucks. In NA football, there are lots of short advertising spots where one cannot view the field of play, whereas rugby is continuous, save for injury, and the ads must appear alongside play. Same thing with soccer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada rules at Hockey From: Les from Hull Date: 27 Feb 02 - 03:05 PM Yes, Canada have a good Rugby Union side. If they were enlarging the Six Nations competition to seven, then Canada could probably be a good choice (unless Roumania got there before you). I'm not sure that anyone plays Rugby League over there. Hull is traditionally a Rugby League city, as are many places in the North of England, but I'm not too keen on it myself. (Don't tell any of my Yorkshire colleagues that, or they'll revoke my Yorkshireman status!) It's a great pity that advertising has to come before the game but that's the kind of world we live in, I suppose. I'm just happy that I can watch live TV uninterrupted soccer broadcasts of 45mins a half. Incidentally it's Arsenal 2 Beyer Leverkusen 0 at the moment (European Champions League). I'm sure that that will mean a lot in Canada. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada rules at Hockey From: gnu Date: 27 Feb 02 - 03:23 PM It does to me. Although, with the Limpics just over, I have no idea what the standings are. My question would be, how are Liverpool and ManU doing ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada rules at Hockey From: Irish sergeant Date: 27 Feb 02 - 04:16 PM I'd rather watch Rugbny then "American" (Read NFL) football. faster ,moving and a hell of a lot more exciting . Neil |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada rules at Hockey From: gnu Date: 27 Feb 02 - 04:19 PM I enjoy both games. I enjoy American Football (Canadian Football sucks by comparison, but it's okay). For the uninitiated, it can be RATHER boring at first... a flash of activity followed by a lull, over and over. However, once you learn the strategic part of the game, it takes on an element somewhat like a game of chess. The variables are seemingly endless and just as important as atheletic ability, which allows the viewer to "participate" by attempting to anticipate the next move or objective. I suppose it's like anything else; if the teams are evenly matched, any sport can be exciting to watch. Of course, if I had to pick just one, it would be rugby... if there was no hockey on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada rules at Hockey From: GUEST Date: 27 Feb 02 - 05:26 PM Steve, I don`t know if Ice Hockey has improved here, Belfast Giants won the British Ice Hockey League by a big margin. And the players were all has beens from the US and Canada. Best sports and I have seen them all in the US and here in Britain and Ireland, right eyes down, Hurling, Rugby Union, Gaelic Football, Rugby League,and Soccer. Sorry I don`t rate US games a trained Gorilla would be a star in US Football and Rounders in Knickerbockers is a joke. Ard Mhacha. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada rules at Hockey From: gnu Date: 27 Feb 02 - 05:39 PM But that would be one smart ape. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada rules at Hockey From: Wolfgang Date: 28 Feb 02 - 04:31 AM Right now, in Kuala Lumpur there is the final round of the hockey world championship (men). The following teams from the English speaking world have qualified for the best sixteen: England, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa But my bet is on the Netherlands or perhaps Pakistan to rule in hockey this year. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada rules at Hockey From: Les from Hull Date: 28 Feb 02 - 08:21 AM gnu - you had to mention ManU (Leeds fan here!), but they beat Nantes 5-1 and look set to qualify for the quarter-finals of the European Champions league. They're at the top of the Premiership (again), and Liverpool are 4th. Liverpool are finding it harder in Europe, although they drew away with Galatasary (Turkey) this week. All the notable soccer teams have excellent websites where you can keep up to date with what's happening in the various competitions. I would have thought with the proliferation of cable channels you could get to see at least recorded soccer matches in North America - we get recordings of Italian, Dutch and Argentinian matches on terrestrial television, as well as live and recorded domestic and European matches. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada rules at Hockey From: gnu Date: 28 Feb 02 - 08:51 AM Thanks for the rundown. It's like this. The cable supplier recently added a bunch of channels for our viewing pleasure, but if you want soccer coverage of any value or depth, you now have to pay extra for that channel. Websites aren't the same as asking someone who follows the games. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada rules at Hockey From: Leeder Date: 28 Feb 02 - 01:47 PM My English son-in-law is the biggest hockey ("ice hockey") fan I know. His first visit to Canada was with a hockey team which played in a tournament in the Toronto area. (His second was to get married to my daughter, but that's another story.) He played semi-pro in Wales (farm team of the Cardiff Devils, now defunct, I understand). Unfortunately the former Bournemouth Sharks franchise is defunct as well, so they don't get live games where they live.He gets one game on TV, in the middle of the night (so he has to tape it and watch it the next evening), and it's from the Eastern U.S., so he doesn't get the Calgary Flames very often. (They expect to emigrate to Canada when they can afford it, and likely will live in Calgary, so he's practising to be a Flames supporter.) I don't know why you need to know all that... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada rules at Hockey From: Leeder Date: 28 Feb 02 - 02:00 PM I'm wondering about Gnu's comment that Canadian football sucks by comparison with Americam. That's like saying that (ice) hockey sucks by comparison with soccer. Sure, if you prefer low-scoring, slow gmes with no body contact and little intensity. It's a matter of personal preference. American football in general is slower, lower-scoring and lower-intensity that Canadian. I don't mind you having a preference, but let's see your reasoning to support it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada rules at Hockey From: GUEST,jack the sailor (baywop) Date: 28 Feb 02 - 05:48 PM The talent is much much richer in the NFL and the US colleges. Many U.S. players make two or three times more money than a whole CFL team!! The Canadian game is faster, but the US teams can attract the best players, even from Canada. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada rules at Hockey From: Leeder Date: 28 Feb 02 - 06:45 PM The NFL has a greater talent pool than the CFL to draw from, true, plus a larger population base, thus larger payrolls. However, it somehow still manages to be slower and less intense than Canadian football. The difference is in the rules themselves. Some people overlook the fact that Canadian football is a *different game* than American. A player whose skills are right for the U.S. version is not necessarily right for the CFL, and vice versa. A case in point is Doug Flutie, who was a major star in Canada and has been an inconsistent performer in the U.S. If the CFL could draw from a talent pool the size of the NFL's, I think it would be more entertaining than the American game by several orders of magnitude. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada rules at Hockey From: gnu Date: 28 Feb 02 - 07:55 PM I agree with your all of your points Leeder. However, I find the American game more strategic because of the extra down. I pretty much know what's going to happen next in Canadian football. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada rules at Hockey From: GUEST,baywop Date: 01 Mar 02 - 09:30 AM I have to dissagree with leeder, In the US at the College and pro level, the game is much more intense. Mostly because the level of talent and the Stakes are much higher. I really enjoy strong play on the line in Football. Because of the wider field, three downs and inadequate funds to pay a lineman a good living, the Canadian game really suffers in this respect. The US game is an intense battle of wits the Canadian game is basically, keep passing til you lose the ball. The games are not so different, Doug Flutie can and has played well in the NFL as has others such as Warren Moon and Joe Theisman. The NFL has tried to open up the game without abandoning its roots and the legacies of the old running teams of years gone by. But the good passing team of the NFL, The Ram's, the 49ers etc, do not have anything to learn from their underpaid cousins to the North. BTW I am Canadian and have followed both leagues. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada rules at Hockey From: gnu Date: 01 Mar 02 - 10:57 AM ...the good passing team of the NFL, The Ram's, the 49ers etc,... ??? What about the Patriots ? Wasn't that a party ? I picked them early... about thirty years ago. I'm a Maritimer and round here, even half the hockey fans cheer for Boston because it's closer and we have greater historical and cultural ties to New England. The other two halves cheer for Montreal and Toronto. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada rules at Hockey From: Leeder Date: 01 Mar 02 - 11:47 AM I confess to not watching the NFL much, precisely because I find it less entertaining than the CFL, but that doesn't obviate my opinions. I can see that, since there's not much chess coverage on TV, watching the NFL might be a substitute (if imperfect). Watching curling might work even better. I'm not interested in "three yards and a cloud of dust" offences, quarterbacks who just stand in the pocket and throw short passes, with no rollouts or scrambling threat, "fair catches" which mean no runback on punts, behemoth linemen who can't move except to fall forward, and all the rest of what make American football unique. The rule differences are subtle, maybe the difference they create won't be apparent to the superficial eye, but they create a very different game. Here's an instructive story. The Sacramento Gold Miners were the first U.S. team to play in the CFL, as part of its doomed effort at expansion south of the border. They had no coaches with Canadian football experience, and they were allowed to use all American players as an exemption to the non-import rule. They kept getting creamed. It soon became apparent that their conditioning wasn't good enough. The players were in "NFL shape", which just wasn't enough to be competitive in the CFL, and none of the coaches, being American, realized this. This thread has crept. Perhaps we should start a new one. Does anyone know how to do a blue clicky to link us up? (I promise to learn, one of these days.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada rules at Hockey From: Lonesome EJ Date: 01 Mar 02 - 12:54 PM I might point out that Joe Sakic and Pat Roy both have homes in Colorado now, and that the COLORADO Avalanche are the World Champs. Now whether Sakic should be allowed to remain in this country after his traitorous goal-scoring in the game...that's an open question. Yes, I'm joking! Congratulation to Canada and your team. You guys deserve it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada rules at Hockey From: gnu Date: 01 Mar 02 - 01:31 PM Leeder... Click here Copy the address of the new thread and put in the quotes. Then, you should go to the new thread and put in a blue clickey for the old thread and also include the last 5 or 10 posts of the old thread, by using copy and paste, to help continuity. Or, just start a thread called, say, "BS : Do you prefer football or football ?" and see what happens. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada rules at Hockey From: Leeder Date: 04 Mar 02 - 01:39 PM Real life took over for a couple of days; now it seems I've said all I'm a-gonna say on the subject, so I won't go through the motions. |