Anyone else miss variable rink dimensions?

[Eleven]

The article posted by PA in the Porky Palmer thread (read it if you haven't) made me kind of long for the days when rinks were not all the same size.  Teams had to play differently in the Aud or the Boston Garden than in the Saddledome.  I saw it as a feature, not a bug.  Kind of like how baseball teams have to play differently in different parks.

 

Anyone with me on this?

[Doohicksie]

I want Euro rinks.

[Eleven]

I want Euro rinks.

 

Throw a few of those into the mix, sure.

[WildCard]

I'm with you. Baseball parks are all different. It adds so much to the game and experience

[Sabres Fan in NS]

I loved the small and intimate rinks.  They were great.

[darksabre]

The article posted by PA in the Porky Palmer thread (read it if you haven't) made me kind of long for the days when rinks were not all the same size. Teams had to play differently in the Aud or the Boston Garden than in the Saddledome. I saw it as a feature, not a bug. Kind of like how baseball teams have to play differently in different parks.

 

Anyone with me on this?

Yes.

 

I always loved RIT hockey games at the old Ritter because it was a shorter sheet (185 x 85) than NHL ice. Made playing there a little more interesting for opponents I think.

[Weave]

Yes, please.

 

Fond memories of small rinks in Buffalo and Boston.  Wasn't Calgary's rink bigger than standard as well?  Non standard playing surfaces adds to the interest and character of games.

[That Aud Smell]

Amen.

 

I seem to recall the Quebec ice being ... idiosyncratic somehow as well.

[SwampD]

Edited January 12, 2018 by SwampD

[Neo]

Yes. Different is good. Same is .... zzZZZzZZzzz. For life and hockey.

 

Outstanding post idea.

[dudacek]

Absolutely. Make home ice advantage a real thing.

 

I hate the fact that the hockey world is too staid to even consider these things.

 

****

 

How about a sloped ice surface?

We play an annual road hockey game on a lacrosse court that literally drops two feet over its length.

The old guys (my team) always demands the high end.

Edited January 12, 2018 by Mick O’Manly

[Thorner]

In the CFL, some end zones are smaller than others because the corners are chopped off.

 

I always found it weird.

[Stoner]

Yes.

 

I always loved RIT hockey games at the old Ritter because it was a shorter sheet (185 x 85) than NHL ice. Made playing there a little more interesting for opponents I think.

185, I can see the difference. The Aud was 196. I always wondered how much difference two feet at either end could make. More psychological than anything?

 

Good topic, Eleven.

[Eleven]

Yes, please.

 

Fond memories of small rinks in Buffalo and Boston.  Wasn't Calgary's rink bigger than standard as well?  Non standard playing surfaces adds to the interest and character of games.

 

Mentioned the Saddledome in the original post.  It was huge.  EDIT: And pardon me, it was "Stampede Corral," not the current Saddledome.

 

185, I can see the difference. The Aud was 196. I always wondered how much difference two feet at either end could make. More psychological than anything?

 

Good topic, Eleven.

 

 

Wasn't the Aud narrow, too, though?

Amen.

 

I seem to recall the Quebec ice being ... idiosyncratic somehow as well.

 

Yeah, it had this little behind the home bench.

In the CFL, some end zones are smaller than others because the corners are chopped off.

 

I always found it weird.

 

This is true, and that's kind of neat as well.

Edited January 12, 2018 by Eleven

[dudacek]

Mentioned the Saddledome in the original post.  It was huge.  EDIT: And pardon me, it was "Stampede Corral," not the current Saddledome.

 

 

 

 

Wasn't the Aud narrow, too, though?

 .

I think it was 83 feet wide instead of 85.

It was also slightly more oval, in that the corners were more egg shaped than the cookie cutter current rinks.

[pi2000]

All NHL rinks are required to be 200x85.

 

Olympic sheets are 200x100.

 

I think the length is fine, but with bigger faster players they should go a little wider, something like 200x93.     Would make breakouts and zone entries easier, making it tougher to defend a wider area.

[Stoner]

This source claims the Aud's four-feet difference was made up in the neutral zone, not the offensive zones.

 

 

Buffalo Memorial Auditorium - 196' x 85' (Neutral Zone smaller then regulation)

 

http://www.frozenfaceoff.net/2015/01/nhl-history-of-rinks.html

I think it was 83 feet wide instead of 85.
It was also slightly more oval, in that the corners were more egg shaped than the cookie cutter current rinks.

Everything I see says 85 feet.

[Taro T]

This source claims the Aud's four-feet difference was made up in the neutral zone, not the offensive zones.

 

 

 

http://www.frozenfaceoff.net/2015/01/nhl-history-of-rinks.html

 

Everything I see says 85 feet.

Stampede Corral was 200' x 85'. It probably did have "wider corners" though.

 

Barn only seated 6,492 w/ another room for another 752 SRO.

 

Olympia was the 200' x 83' rink.

 

Baaahstan Gaaadin was the other 83' wide rink. That 1 was also shorter than regulation too.

[Weave]

All NHL rinks are required to be 200x85.

 

Olympic sheets are 200x100.

 

I think the length is fine, but with bigger faster players they should go a little wider, something like 200x93.     Would make breakouts and zone entries easier, making it tougher to defend a wider area.

 

That is the common thought, but in international play you see that the defense has more time to react and the game isn't nearly as wide open as you'd think.

[ubkev]

Different size rinks in all the different barns would be very cool.

[Stoner]

Do all rinks have the solid red bar for a goal light now? I looked in the rule book and it doesn't seem to require a standard light. I miss the flashing Kojak red light.

 

One rink element that surprisingly is not standard is the height of the boards:

 

Boards - The rink shall be surrounded by a wall known as
the “boards” which shall extend not less than forty inches (40'') and
not more than forty-eight inches (48'') above the level of the ice
surface. The ideal height of the boards above the ice surface shall be
forty-two inches (42'').

 

Does anyone know why the goal line extends up the boards?

[LTS]

No thanks.  I don't want different size rinks.  It was a fun quirk but these days it's quite unnecessary.  I could imagine teams somehow building in temporary seating to shrink a rink every now and then as needed.

[MattPie]

I'm wary of any quirk that may turn the game into a certain amount of rock-paper-scissors. "Oh, sorry about your playoffs series with the Coyotes, they have a slow team so the use a small rink to compensate."

 

I think baseball, being an outdoor sport is a better fit for it, and the fields are gigantic so they don't always fit into cities well.

[Doohicksie]

 

Dahell.  :blink:

No thanks.  I don't want different size rinks.  It was a fun quirk but these days it's quite unnecessary.  I could imagine teams somehow building in temporary seating to shrink a rink every now and then as needed.

 

I think you merely put in a rule that says that says once a rink is established for the season you can't change it. 

[MattPie]

This is a good data point. gigantic ice, no goalie stick, still only a 5-4 game after 90 minutes. Maybe a bigger ice surface won't increase scoring. :)