The Olympic Hockey Tournament Format
Even though there's NHL hockey being played this weekend, the hockey world is begin to shift its focus to the Olympic games which opened last night. These are nervous days for players, managers and fans who are all hoping that everyone makes it through the weekend healthy. If ever there was a time to play the Canucks or Sharks, this weekend might be it, especially if you come in ready to play a physical style.
This Olympic tournament is particularly noteworthy because the hockey is going to look more like NHL hockey than it has in past tournaments. This is the first time the Olympics are going to be played on the smaller NHL-sized ice surfaces. It's the first time the Olympics will be using the two-referee system. And it might be the last time that NHL players appear. So let's make sure we enjoy these games because it could be the last best-on-best tournament for quite some time (with apologies to Jochen Hecht).
There are also some differences from the NHL game. The international game uses no-touch icing, doesn't give an automatic penalty to players for shooting the puck over the glass in the defensive zone and doesn't use the goaltender trapezoid behind the net. It's like pre-lockout hockey with no-touch icing and no fighting (it results in an automatic game misconduct). After the jump we'll take a look at the tournament's format.
The men's tournament begins with a group stage. The twelve teams are split into three groups and are seeded according to their nation's International Ice Hockey Federation ranking in 2008:Group A is Canada (1), the United States (6), Switzerland (7!) and Norway (12). Group B is Russia (2), the Czech Republic (5), Slovakia (8! and they're actually down to 9th in the 2009 rankings) and Latvia (11). Group C is Sweden (3), Finland (4), Belarus (9) and Germany (10). Every team plays the other three teams in its group once and they're awarded points based on their W-OW-OL-L record (That's right Bruce! Three points for a win, two for a win in overtime or shoot-out, one for a loss in overtime or shoot-out and no points for a loss. There are some thing to be learned from this whole international hockey thing). If the game needs overtime, a five-minute four-on-four period is played and if there's still no conclusion it goes to a five-man shoot-out.
Once all of these games have been played, no team is eliminated from the competition. Instead, all of the teams are put into one standings column organized by standings points. In the event of a tie in standings points, the first tiebreaker is goal differential, the second is goals scored, and the third is IIHF ranking (the team with the higher ranking gets the higher placing). The top four teams immediately advance to the quarterfinal round while the bottom eight play each other in qualification games (5 v 12, 6 v 11, 7 v 10 and 8 v 9). The interesting thing about this format is that winning your group does not guarantee you an automatic spot in the quarterfinals though you'd likely need one group to have three teams in one group go 2-0-0-1 in order fort that to happen. In this playoff qualification round overtime is extended to 10 minutes, after which time there would be a shoot-out if the score remains tied.
The four winners of the qualification games then join the four teams that were atop the standings in the group stage for the quarterfinal round. The team that finished first plays the 8/9 winner, the second place team takes on the 7/10 winner, the team in third gets the 6/11 winner and the team that finished fourth will play the 5/12 winner. We then have one game semifinals as between the 1/8/9 winner and the 4/5/12 winner as well as the 2/7/10 winner and the 3/6/11 winner. We're then down to two teams who meet in the gold medal game which would have a twenty-minute four-on-four overtime period if the score is tied after regulation. Let's all hope it doesn't come to that.
Edit: I was mistaken above. The first "tie-breaker" is actually position in your group and not standings points. So a team with fewer standings points but a higher position in their group would finish higher. So, for example, if one team finishes 3rd in their group with two points and another team finishes fourth in the their group with three points, the team with two points would be ranked higher. Thus winning your group does guarantee you a bye into the quarterfinals.
0 recs |
10 comments
|
Comments
Meanwhile, on the women’s side, it’s Canada 5, Slovakia 0, and we’re 12 minutes deep. The last goal should’ve been called back because the delayed-penalty whistle had gone, but I guess the refs said fuck it, not going to matter much.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: these lopsided games are fucking depressing. I know we have to grow the ladies’ game somehow, but still…isn’t there something better than this?
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
Slovakia was one of the qualifier teams. In 2009 they were ranked 15th in the world. The other seven teams in the tournament are ranked one through seven in the IIHF rankings so the Slovak women are likely in over their heads against everybody. You can try to weed these teams out through qualifying but if they get on a nice run at the right time then they’re in. There might be some other teams getting blown out but I image the Slovakians will take the worst of it. It was probably a big deal for them to make the tournament and likely will help them grow the game there regardless of their finish.
by Scott Reynolds on Feb 13, 2010 7:23 PM PST up reply actions
I wonder if their appearance had anything to do with slapping down Bulgaria 82-0 last year.
You’re probably right, I just get really agitated by double-digit scores.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
I’m down on the “round robin, but everyone gets out anyway” format. I’d rather see a big-ass double- or even triple-elimination thing from the get-go.
I think a double-elimination tournament would be pretty cool. Triple-elimination might make it pretty hard to get all the teams onside since they’d very likely be playing a tonne of games. It does seem a bit wonky to have all the teams advance. I really don’t like the standings mix after the round robin. The Swedes and Finns sure get a good draw with those being the rules.
by Scott Reynolds on Feb 13, 2010 10:21 PM PST up reply actions
That’s right Bruce! Three points for a win, two for a win in overtime or shoot-out, one for a loss in overtime or shoot-out and no points for a loss. There are some thing to be learned from this whole international hockey thing
There is a whole lot to be learned. The IIHF has been ahead of the NHL for a long time in certain aspects of the rules. They seem to be governed by this NHL-unfriendly concept known to the rest of us as “logic”, and it can be a wonderful thing. There is an emphasis on player safety for one thing.
- Hits to the head and hits from behind are either 2 and 10 or 5 and a game, depending on severity. Both are serious penalties, but give the referee a little bit of latitude beyond either having to throw the book at the guy or ignore it completely.
- The helmet rule, a.k.a. the chinstrap rule is very progressive. Helmet comes off, you put it back on or you hit the bench. Or, you get a penalty. Solution: fasten your f***ing chin strap.
- No touch icing.
- The crease violation rule is a very happy medium between the extremes of the NHL, from the “don’t leave your toenail clippings in the crease” days of the (ahem) Brett Hull era, to the “blue paint? what blue paint?” standard that applies today. At the IIHF if the offensive guy camps out in the crease the ref blows the whistle and the faceoff comes outside. Just enough disincentive to stop doing it, without requiring a penalty which the ref would be reluctant to call. As an ex-goalie I like the degree of ownership of the crease that is conferred on the goalie in the international game.
- Standings that are mathematically correct. It was obvious to me within about 5 minutes of the NHL first announcing they would award a point to overtime losers, that there should be a commensurate point awarded to regulation winners to balance those scales. In the Olympics a team that gets to the guaranteed point of overtime is also guaranteed to give up (at least) a point, so there is much more incentive to try to win the damn game.
- Scoring that is mathematically correct. Shootout winners (only) are recognized as “real” goals, so that team scoring totals actually add up to credited goals.
Off the top of my head the only recent rule instituted by the NHL which I see as more advanced is the no-change after icing. (The trapezoid is “advanced” but it’s also batshit crazy.)
Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries
"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg
Thanks for all the additional comments Bruce. I also like a lot of the IIHF rules as compared to the NHL, especially no-touch icing and the player protection rules you mentioned above. The goal crease one is interesting. Eric Furlatt seems to think the IIHF rules apply in the NHL’s regular season. Or at least I can’t think of why else that goal was called off. That was a really funny sequence. Poor Glencross.
by Scott Reynolds on Feb 13, 2010 11:01 PM PST up reply actions
Unreal. I hadn’t seen that one. Thanks.
Thing about the international rule is the guy camps out there and it’s a whistlestop, no ifs ands or buts. It’s not a situation to be interpreted only after the puck has entered the net and emotions are high, it’s just tweet! right now.
I loved watching it get enforced on Tomas Holmstrom in Torino. :)
Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries
"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg
by Bruce McCurdy on Feb 13, 2010 11:19 PM PST up reply actions
I believe they said on TSN during the WJs that the IIHF was going to start implementing the no-change icing at the Olympics.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
Cool. It’s a good rule, at least at the senior level. Certainly the IIHF has followed suit on some rules that were originally introduced in the NHL, such as clearing the zone (touching up) on delayed offsides, 4-on-4 in overtime, and automatic penalties for pucks over glass from the D-zone. (Scott, I know you said it wasn’t automatic, but all I can remember is Kovalchuk beating us in Quebec city on a 4-on-3 while Rick Nash sat out a delay of game penalty of all @#$%ing things. Darn penalty cost us the gold medal.)
More often though, the IIHF has been the trailblazer in modernizing the game, such as eliminating the two-line offsides years ago, which the NHL finally followed suit on after the lockout. I’m still hopeful that the NHL will adopt some of the other IIHF rules, esp. those involving player safety and three-point games, as detailed above.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries
"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg
by Bruce McCurdy on Feb 14, 2010 10:20 AM PST up reply actions

by 





















