Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Goalieframes

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Goalieframes

    To think about how stance, hand positioning, and save selection should change depending on the situation, I tried to figure out the size and shape of the parallelogram the puck must pass through, at the goalie's depth, to enter the net. To give a name to the parallelogram, I called it a goalieframe. The goalieframe size and shape varies with shot location, shot speed, and goalie depth. I started with trigonometry. That calculates the goalieframe width fine, but that doesn't take into consideration the arched trajectory of the puck. So I found an astrophysist who created a program that calculates the puck's trajectory to arrive at the goalieframe's heights on the left and right sides.

    For example, on a North American rink, a 75 mph shot from the face-off dot with the goalie at a depth of 6 feet, the goalie frame is 43" tall on the short side, 40" wide, and 39" tall on the far side.

    As another example, also on a North American rink, a 75 mph shot from the nearest edge of the circle with the goalie at a depth of 6 feet, the goalie frame is 34" tall on the short side, 30" wide, and 26" tall on the far side.

    The differences in size and shape of the goalieframes suggests to me that they should be defended with different stances, different hand heights, and different saves, on the ones from within our reaction distance, especially if you choose a blocking save.

    While I was at it I prepared the information for international sized rink sight cue locations as well.

    Anyway, I couldn't find anywhere where anyone had done this before, so I put the calculator up on a web site so all goalies could use it. Because there are a huge number of possible combinations of shot location, shot speed, and goalie depth, I also prepared diagrams of the frames for some shot locations that have sight cues that don't change from rink to rink such as the dot, top of the circle, inner hash mark etc. On these diagrams are the goalieframes for shots of 50 mph, 75 mph, and 100 mph. Interestingly, the kids playing against 50 mph shots have to defend the largest goalieframes.

    After looking at the diagrams, I think this should affect how goalies train. You all know the drill where you start on the post, move out to the edge of the crease at about 33 degrees, then to 66, then 90 degrees, then to 123 degrees, then to 147 degrees, then to the other post, then move back in the other direction. Everyone does it holding their hands at the same height and body at the same height. Seems to me that because the short side goalieframe is usually taller than the far side goalieframe, and because the goalieframes tend to get shorter as the puck gets closer to the net, the goalies should go through it once assuming the puck is at 50 feet with stance and hand heights chosen for those frames if a shot were taken, then go back through it assuming puck is at 35 feet with stance and hand heights chosen for those frames if a shot were taken, then again assuming the puck is at 20 feet. Eventually, the goalie would naturally assume the best stance and hand positions whenever they saw the puck at particular angles and distances.

    Anyway, to make it simple for goalies to learn I designed simple flash cards showing the goalieframe shape and dimensions for 75 mph shots from 12 sight cue locations on each side of the ice and for 3 shot locations in the slot. I figured the 75 mph shot speed is a decent average for midget aged players and beer leaguers. Junior, college and pro goalies facing faster shots can use the other diagrams that show 100 mph shots or use the online calculator to get exact goalieframes for any situation they wish. Little kids playing against 50 mph and slower shots should probably just be working on movement and playing, and not even be thinking about goalieframe dimensions.

    This goalieframe idea is not meant to detract from the importance of movement or reading the shot release, or any other goalie skill. It just made sense to me that it would be helpful to use those skills while knowing the size and shape you realistically have to defend when the puck is at particular locations.

    No money in this, as I'm not a goalie coach, so this is not a commercial posting. There isn't even advertising on the web site. I just hadn't seen this information calculated before, and I thought it would help goalies to have it done, so I did it.

    Anyway, because this board was very helpful to me when my son and I started goaltending, I figured I would put the first lengthy post announcing this resource here.

    The flash cards are at http://www.goalieframes.com/flashcards/

    The other diagrams for North American rinks are at http://www.goalieframes.com/nasightcueframes/ and for international rinks are at http://www.goalieframes.com/intsightcueframes/

    The calculator is at http://www.goalieframes.com/goalieframescalculator/

    General discussion of the concept and its implications are at http://www.goalieframes.com/

    Help yourself to whatever resources are there.














  • #2
    I've seen this concept called box control on several YouTube videos. It seems most useful on ice when done with ropes from the puck to the 4 corners. At least you acknowledge that gravity plays a part in the puck trajectory affecting the box height. I have no idea how fast the shots I face are but it becomes an intuitive thing. It's actually the off speed shots that can be most troublesome.

    Comment


    • #3
      Yes, the high off speed ones have a higher trajectory and can still hit the top corners. Higher trajectory means more frame for the goalie to cover.

      Comment


      • #4
        Thank goodness someone finally acknowledging the concept of arc on shots. It seems many people have been operating under the false reality that gravity doesn't affect traveling hockey pucks. Even high speed shots will have some arc. One thing the Foxtrack puck did well was show the true path of shots on goal. They rarely were true straight lines.

        Comment

        Working...
        X