4 posts :: Page 1 of 1
By: Likes:
  (Read 7850 times)  

I do volunteer video work for a minor-league hockey team, and the organization/coaching staff has given us no direction on the textbook definitions for certain events that we log using the Steva software (we record all games on a laptop so the coaches can go back afterwards and do their analysis).

Having watched hockey for about 15 years now, a lot of it is just common sense...chances, faceoffs, penalties, goals, etc.

But we're struggling with the "neutral zone forecheck."

To date, we've been logging a "forecheck" as any situation where the opposition is trying to break out of their defensive zone, but is getting pressure from one of our forwards. So we're good there.

Based on this, I'm assuming that a "neutral zone forecheck" is simply a situation in which our team does not get a forechecker to the opposing team's player before he crosses his own blue line. Therefore, the first pressure the opposition gets occurs somewhere in the neutral zone (presumably because of something like a bad line change, or any situation in which our players do not get on the ice quickly enough).

Am I correct in assuming that a "neutral zone forecheck" is simply that...a forechecker pressuring their player in the neutral zone?

This is how we've been logging the NZ FC with the software, but the coaching staff keeps saying they need to further clarify the definition with us (but they never do, as they can't seem to find the time to). Additionally, other members of our video crew have differing ideas on what the definition truly is.

Any feedback would be appreciated.

Thanks for your time.

   
Newbie
Registered: 03/07/10
Posts: 2
By: Likes:
   

A neutral zone forecheck is designed to cause the turnover in the neutral zone as opposed to aggressive pressure in the offensive zone. A lot of times it is because of the dump in to change lines and F1 cannot create pressure but it is also a team strategy whenever you only send in one forechecker whose job is to cut the ice in half and steer the puck carrier wide. Of course most teams simply do the hinge where the D with the puck goes wide and puts it back to his partner in the middle lane who then hits a F flying up the weak side boards.

Most forechecks with only F1 in are neutral zone forechecks. In the old 1-2-2 F1 steers while F2 and F3 take the wingers and D1 and D2 protect the middle. A more agressive 1-2-2 has F1 steer and F2 and F3 lock the wingers on the breakout.

A 1-2-2 neutral zone trap has F1 aggressively steer F2 make it look like the wing on the wall is open and then pressure while F1 pursues and F3 move to the middle lane, D1 stand up and D2 take the wide lane.

A 1-4 plugs up the neutral zone and tries to cause turnovers and offsides. It is used a lot when teams think they are outmatched.

A 1-3-1 can be aggressive in the offensive end if the halfbacks pressure the first pass but usually it is a passive forecheck that tries to cause turnovers in the neutral zone.

So usually any forecheck with F1 being the only player in is designed to cause nzone turnovers.


'The Game is the Greatest Coach'
'Enjoy the Game'
   
Admin
Registered: 06/25/08
Posts: 3019
Location: Calgary, Canada
By: Likes:
   

Quote by: TomM

A lot of times it is because of the dump in to change lines and F1 cannot create pressure but it is also a team strategy whenever you only send in one forechecker whose job is to cut the ice in half and steer the puck carrier wide.

Most forechecks with only F1 in are neutral zone forechecks.

So usually any forecheck with F1 being the only player in is designed to cause nzone turnovers.

I'm not familiar with F1, F2, F3, but I think I'm following you here.

So it really has nothing to do with where the opposing players are when pressured. If there's a conscious effort by the forward to play the center ice (essentially forecheck up the middle) and force the opposing breakout wide, than that could be considered a NZ FC.

A standard "forecheck" is basically one of their guys being pressured behind the net, along the wall, etc., without an organized breakout necessarily having formed yet.

I know that's being a bit vague, but am I at least on the right track?

Thanks for the response. If I'm understanding what you wrote here, this has been very helpful. Much appreciated, amigo!

   
Newbie
Registered: 03/07/10
Posts: 2
By: Likes:
   

If only one player forechecks then the team should be able to get over their blue line and the challenge will be in the neutral zone. The file on Team Play has a lot of material about various forechecks.

Tomorrow I am going to post a very aggressive forecheck that I call a 1-3-1 Torpedo.

4 posts :: Page 1 of 1