Talk:Ice hockey at the 2010 Winter Olympics – Men's tournament

Sweden vs. E3 or E1?

The Quarterfinal draw chart shows Sweden playing E3, but the game schedule shows E1. Which is correct? Grjako (talk) 08:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sweden Plays E3, Russia plays E2, Finland plays E1. You can see it here. The template for the schedule is pretty bad, so it's a little bit messed up. The odd timing concessions made by the schedulers (USA plays at 12, CAN plays at 4:30 if they advance) don't help. The only thing that is accurate/finalized in the schedule is that US will play at 12. The other times are subject to the result of CAN/GER, as can be seen by the schedule that NBC has put on their website (which would be inaccurate were CAN to win, as they have RUS playing at 9pm... per the standard schedule). In all, it's a fluid situation. Bantab (talk) 09:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Then nobody other than the US should be listed in any of those quarterfinal games, right? (Right now they show Russia vs. E3, Finland vs. E2 and Sweden vs. E1, none of which are correct anyway.) Grjako (talk) 09:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It's my understanding that Sweden will definitely be the late game and USA definitely the early game. The question is what order the middle games will be played. I think it'll be Finland and then Russia, unless Canada wins, in which case it'd be flipped. So I think the only game times that should be TBD are Finland and Russia. USA and Sweden are, as I understand it, certain. MrArticleOne (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, I confused myself. It was my understanding that the 4D game was going to be the late game, unless it was rescheduled because CAN or USA was in it. Neither can play in the 4D game (FIN), so it was my understanding FIN would definitely be in the late game, and USA definitely in the early game. But maybe I'm losing it. MrArticleOne (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Since no quarterfinal matches yet have announced participants, maybe it would be best if we keep them all TBD for now. Grjako (talk) 11:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I think if there's one thing we know for sure, it's USA at 12:00, right? So that should stay, at least. MrArticleOne (talk) 13:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

About the playoff bracket

I believe we should use a more standard template for the 2010 hockey tournament. For too long hockey has used a template that is dramatically different from the ones used for all other Olympic sports, and I think it would be time to switch to a more standard form of templates, such as this one (well, a version that has a third play play-off). I would also argue that the seed received by a team should be display next to the team on every round (as in archery).

Well, here is the kind of templates I would suggest:

Group phase

Team	GP	W	OTW	OTL	L	GF	GA	DIF	PTS
Sri Lanka	3	0	3	0	0	3	0	3	6
Laos	3	0	2	1	0	2	1	1	5
Pakistan	3	1	0	2	0	1	2	-1	5
Bangladesh	3	0	0	2	1	0	3	-3	2

Team	GP	W	OTW	OTL	L	GF	GA	DIF	PTS
Jamaica	3	3	0	0	0	6	0	6	9
Trinidad and Tobago	3	2	0	0	1	6	1	5	6
Uruguay	3	1	0	0	2	3	5	-2	3
Bolivia	3	0	0	0	3	0	9	-9	0

Team	GP	W	OTW	OTL	L	GF	GA	DIF	PTS
Cook Islands	3	3	0	0	0	6	0	6	9
Papua New Guinea	3	0	2	0	1	3	2	1	4
Togo	3	1	0	1	1	2	3	-1	4
Senegal	3	0	0	1	2	0	6	-6	1

Seeding

Team	POS	PTS	DIF	GF	WR	Seed
Cook Islands	1	9	6	6	4	1
Jamaica	1	9	6	6	6	2
Sri Lanka	1	6	3	3	1	3
Trinidad and Tobago	2	6	5	6	12	4
Laos	2	5	1	2	2	5
Papua New Guinea	2	4	3	1	5	6
Pakistan	3	5	-1	1	10	7
Uruguay	3	4	1	2	3	8
Togo	3	3	-1	2	9	9
Bangladesh	4	2	-3	0	8	10
Senegal	4	1	-6	0	11	11
Bolivia	4	0	-9	0	7	12

Elimination Round

	Playoff					Quarterfinals					Semifinals					Finals
						1	Cook Islands	6
						8	Uruguay	2
	8	Uruguay	2
	9	Togo	1
											1	Cook Islands	1
											12	Bolivia	0
	5	Laos	5
	12	Bolivia	6
						12	Bolivia	5
						4	Trinidad and Tobago	4
																1	Cook Islands	3
																6	Papua New Guinea	1
						3	Sri Lanka	1
						6	Papua New Guinea	4
	11	Senegal	2
	6	Papua New Guinea	5
											6	Papua New Guinea	5
											2	Jamaica	0
	7	Pakistan	3													Third place
	10	Bangladesh	0
						7	Pakistan	1								12	Bolivia	4
						2	Jamaica	4								2	Jamaica	2

Fox334 (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I completely and utterly agree with you, the re-ranking explanation is confusing to say the least, a 12 team bracket with bye for the four teams ranked 1D to 4D would serve as a more logical explanation and would save text space on this page. this one includes four rounds with byes and a 3rd place game. I say we change this before people get incredibly confused when the playoff round starts.

Blocparty22 (talk) 05:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I also agree we should use the bracket style listed above. I don't know if "third place" can be changed to say "bronze medal game" however. If no one thinks it's that important of an issue, I'd make the change immediately, and the text in the secondary round section can be merged with that in the playoff round section since they're essentially the same round. Tampabay721 (talk) 05:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I just updated your suggested changes and if someone wants to mess around with the template functions and change it to bronze medal game, then be my guest. But i think it is fairly self explanatory that third place equals a bronze medal for the winner.

Blocparty22 (talk) 05:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I said everything I needed in my most recent edit summary, but to reiterate I didn't change much of what you did because that's pretty much what I had envisioned anyway so I just made a few minor changes. I'd consider it fixed unless someone else comes along with their opinion or if you have any other issues with it. Tampabay721 (talk) 06:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the bracket being used is appropriate for the format. There should be connecting lines between the 2nd and 3rd rounds (QFs and SFs). There's no reseeding being employed here. MrArticleOne (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The one you just put in doesn't allow for a 3rd place game though... It is strange though that the {{4RoundBracket-Byes with 3rd}} template doesn't have those lines. If only these templates were easier to manipulate. Too much coding, not enough instructions. Tampabay721 (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Well nevermind about how they weren't easy to manipulate... I seemed to fix the whole thing about how the lines didn't connect between the 2nd and 3rd rounds of the bracket. Tampabay721 (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Putting the lines in ruins that template; we need to use a different template. The point of that design is to allow re-seeding before the 3rd round, which is why there are no lines connecting the 2nd and 3rd rounds. I have put the proper bracket template on the page now. MrArticleOne (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Concerning Notes on US/Canada elimination round start times

I have made a minor edit to the notes which stated the mandatory start times to the U.S. and Canada games during the elimination stage of the tournament. I changed them to just say, i.e. "1" instead of "QF1," as this seemed to create some confusion that the note was referring to Quarterfinal #1, rather than what it is- the first note about the quarter final stage.

Just to further clarify, the notes was probably purposeful in alluding to the fact that in every knockout stage round, the USA will play in the first time slot and Canada in the second. However, this is just a rearrangement of time slots and not actual seeding, as it was perceived by a previous editor of the page today.

Freedom4all (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there info which one of these take prefering spot if USA and Canada play against each other? BleuDXXXIV (talk) 10:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Where do we find the attendance in game references?

Where do we find the attendance in game reference links?--138.67.158.133 (talk) 08:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I cannot find the attendance of games listed at the vancouver2010.com website, but it is listed at the IIHF web site in the pdf report on each game. From the statistics page at iihf.com click on the link marked "summary" for each game, e.g. [1] for the USA-Switzerland game, and the number of spectators is listed just to the left of the referees' names. --Mathew5000 (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ranking of teams within a group

I don't see an explanation on how teams are ranked within a group if they are tied in points.Juve2000 (talk) 02:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This shows the system for group tiebreakers, under the appropriately named "Tie-Breaking System" section. It seems that if two teams are tied in points, then head-to-head record is used, which is easy because there are no ties in this tournament. However for 3 teams, it's a little more confusing to me. I'm not sure how to explain what its saying in a simpler way. Tampabay721 (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Parts of those tie-breaking rules are redundant. Suppose at the end of the preliminary round, in one division there's a three-way tie for first. For Steps 1, 2, and 3 you ignore the games involving the fourth team: you recalculate the standings based only on the games played within the "subgroup" of three teams, looking at points (Step 1), then if necessary the goal difference (Step 2), then if necessary the goals scored (Step 3). If Steps 1 to 3 each preserves the three-way tie, Step 4 tells you to look at the games played between the three teams of the subgroup and "the best ranked team outside the subgroup". But there's only four teams in each group to start with, so there can only be one team outside the subgroup. Therefore the words "best ranked" in Step 4 are redundant. And Step 5 makes no sense at all in talking about "the next highest best ranked team outside the subgroup" because there is no other team!

I guess these tie-breaking rules were written for a different tournament that had maybe five or six teams in each group, and nobody bothered to adapt these rules for this tournament that has only four teams per group. —Mathew5000 (talk) 07:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Well since that's a hell of a lot of detail for a tiebreaker explanation, I think that if there is a 3-way tie (which right now I'm hoping there isn't, lol) whoever's job, whether it be the IIHF or the olympics, can figure all that stuff out, and once we get that information for what team is in which position, it should just say something like "Team A owns the tiebreaker over Team B and C based on goals scored" or whatever the deciding tiebreaker would be. And since it says once the tiebreakers get it narrowed down to only two teams and it goes down to head-to-head then the next explanation would be as easy as "Team B beat Team C." Tampabay721 (talk) 08:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I was suggesting that we should incorporate that information in the wikipedia article. We explain how first-placed teams (guaranteed placement 1 to 3), second-placed teams (guaranteed placement 4-6)..etc, are ranked in case 2 or all 3 teams have the same points, but we totally ignore the tie-breaking procedure with-in a group.Juve2000 (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right, it should be in there. Personally I don't know how to put it in the article in a way that would be easy to read and understand, or anything short of just copying and pasting all the information from the website, which I'm sure doing so would go against some Wikipedia policy or guideline. Tampabay721 (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I see your point. Taking into consideration what you said above regarding some of the tie-breaking procedures being redundant because we are dealing with 4-team groups, I suggest the following:

To determine the ranking withing a group when two or more teams are tied in points, the following criteria will be used in the order presented:

• points earned in games involving only tied teams
• goal difference in games involving only tied teams
• goals scored in games involving only tied teams
• goal difference in all group games
• goals scored in all group games
• better 2009 IIHF World Ranking Position

(if one criterion leaves only two teams tied, then those teams will be ranked based on their head-to-head result)

Maybe what I wrote needs a little polishing. Let me know what you think.Juve2000 (talk) 02:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Good job! The only things I think should be changed is the top sentence to say "If two or more teams are tied in points, the following tiebreaker criteria will be used..." the bottom sentence to say "Once a criterion" rather than "if one," and drop the parenthesis on the bottom sentence. As for the actual tiebreaker procedure itself though, that looks fine to me. I think you put it in a much easier way to understand than the IIHF website. Tampabay721 (talk) 03:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not re-editing it again as my intention was not to create an edit war. As originally written, it said if two or more teams are tied in points, and the first criterion took care of two teams being tied. It's basically saying the head-to-head result determines who is first for a two-team tie. I don't see the need to split the explanation into 2 parts: two teams and more than two teams. Also, on the last sentence, IF is more appropriate than ONCE. If 3 teams are tied in points and, lets say the second criterium (goal difference in games involving only the tied teams) produces the following results: +2, 0, -2, then the tie-breaking mechanism is over and that last sentence is irrelevant. Using the word once makes it seem like it is inevitable. Cheers!Juve2000 (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean now, I'll revert my own edit. Tampabay721 (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Penalty minutes in a game

I think it would be better if they were listed x2 minutes etc. instead of just giving minutes. Thinking an example where one team gets 2 minors, other one 6. The team with two minors also gets 10-minute misconduct, which means that the team has 14 minutes against 12. Also, I was thinking about mentioning players who get (game) misconducts as they are somehow counted, I think that at least two game misconducts mean one-game suspension. BleuDXXXIV (talk) 10:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying every penalty in a particular game should be listed out similar to how every goal is listed? Tampabay721 (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Russia locked to 3D

Despite winning its last game and having the most points right now, the winners of both remaining games are guaranteed to win their group and having more points or a better goal difference then Russia, so Russia will be the weakest group winner and therefore, 3D. --Hautala (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

What happens if Canada wins over the United States in overtime? Both teams in Group A would then be tied with 7 points. Canada would get the #1 seed based on head-to-head. Then, it would come down to goal differential. I guess it would still be a lock that Russia would have the overall 3rd seed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.180.12.149 (talk) 22:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Obviously there is some disagreement among several editors, but would it really hurt if everyone waited until tonight's games are completed? I think it's better than editing the article several dozen times in a small amount of time. Tampabay721 (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Showing these "at least" things in those diagrams is very riskful because it makes that diagram hard to read, and may cause some errors when filling other data in article. My opinion is that showing that green background is good way to indicate that some team has been locked to be in quarter finals, not trying to fill any data to diagram until it is totally certain. 84.250.195.96 (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but it is absolutely definite that Russia will finish in the 3D position. But the amount of IP's updating this page is kind of scary considering the large amount of traffic and the multiple wrong updates that have been happening since the completion of the Russia/Czech Republic game. Could we possibly put a lock on the page to only allow signed in users to update this page for the time being? Blocparty22 (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Russia may end up on 3D, 4D, or 5D. Isn't that easy to realize?--Sergei (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

We know Russia will finish 3D or higher because they won their group, and winning your group guarantees a 1D-3D position based on the tiebreaker format. Tampabay721 (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It isn't even really a "tiebreaker." The teams are simply placed in bands: the three 1st place teams are 1D-3D, the 2nd place teams are 4D-6D, etc. It really has nothing to do with being tied, that's just the way that they're grouping and seeding the teams. I am not disagreeing with you, Tampa, but I think maybe the confusion here is people are throwing around the word "tied," it doesn't matter if they're tied at all. MrArticleOne (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right. I didn't mean to say tiebreaker. I think this whole frenzy is beginning to rub off on me, haha. Tampabay721 (talk) 23:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Russia can only be 3D.--Sergei (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

So, am I seeing this right, if Canada beats Germany, we have a Canada-Russia Quarterfinal? Or do they re-seed after the qualification playoffs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.224.68 (talk) 03:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You see it correctly. CAN/GER winner plays RUS. MrArticleOne (talk) 04:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Russia can be 2D. If Sweden wins on bullits with one goal difference. Then it has 7 points and 5 GD, while Russia has 7 points and 7 GD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickalex79 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

If Sweden wins, regardless of the specific details, they will have at least 8 points. Same with Finland; no matter who wins, someone (besides USA) will have more points than Russia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.18.47 (talk) 03:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sweden and Finland both have 6 points as of right now, and the winner of their game tonight is guaranteed at least 2 points and 1st place in their respective group, so no matter who wins, they'll have at least 8 points to Russia's 7, so Russia would have the least amount of points of the group winners, and thus earn the 3D seed. Tampabay721 (talk) 03:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Just echoing this comment, Sweden plays Finland. They both have 6 points. One of them is going to come away from that game with at least 2 points, which is going to put them ahead of Russia, with 8 points. MrArticleOne (talk) 03:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

If Finland looses to Sweden in overtime, Sweden would have 8 and be 2D, Finland would have 7 and possibly better goal differential, wouldn't it make them 3D? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.108.245 (talk) 05:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

No, because Finland would not have won their Group. The Group winners are 1D, 2D, 3D. If you don't win your group, you can finish no better than 4D. MrArticleOne (talk) 05:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe Russia will play Canada in quarters (No way Germany would get there) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.108.245 (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Getting a jump on USA/CAN

I see that if USA defeats Canada in regulation, Canada is locked into 6D. Can anything else be locked into place based on that game tonight? I am not seeing anything but only gave it a quick once-over. If we work that out on here we might be able to reduce the flood of edits later. MrArticleOne (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything else other than the USA over Canada scenario you presented. Tampabay721 (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Czech Republic eliminated from auto-advance to QF

I'm not sure I see how. They're tied with Sweden on points, so assuming Canada loses and Sweden loses by more than one goal or by exactly one goal without scoring four, Czech Republic would jump Sweden into the QF, no? 128.42.157.142 (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I reached the same conclusion.Lejman (talk) 02:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, cool. I didn't want to change it before someone confirmed my suspicion. Math is not my strongest point. 128.42.157.142 (talk) 02:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Even for those it is, mistakes happen. With the edit warring going on your method with asking first is most appreciated =) Lejman (talk) 02:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

People are more concerned with getting "credit" for an edit than being right. It's frustrating. MrArticleOne (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit-crediting is one reason I don't sign into my account anymore. So long as I just edit from an IP address, the edit can stay anonymous, like it is meant to be. 128.42.157.142 (talk) 04:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

That was once my position, but I found that changes I made to articles were almost presumptively invalid, so I decided to start working under a name. MrArticleOne (talk) 04:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

USA time

Because USA will play at 12:00 irrespective of what seed they get, I have changed the games accordingly and put TBD instead of the seeds, because we don't know what seed USA will end up with. MrArticleOne (talk) 03:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a dumb question, but how do you know USA will play at 12:00 and not 16:30? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.18.47 (talk) 03:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

See the schedule: http://www.iihf.com/en/channels10/olympics-2010/schedule.html. It says: "QF1 - if qualified, USA to play in the 12.00 game." MrArticleOne (talk) 03:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

@MrArticleOne: With your edits, and looking at the page histories with you reverting a couple of users, I believe it has caused some confusion. For example, the template you are referring to is currently named Template:2010 Winter Olympics men's ice hockey game E1 (emphasis added). The template's original purpose was to list "the first-ranked team after the preliminary round and the fourth-ranked team advancing from the qualification round"[2], not necessarily the 12:00 match. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It was foolish to set those templates up that way, and their titles are largely irrelevant. Setting them up that way took for granted that USA and/or CAN would end up playing in the time slot their seed was assigned to. It was just not flexible enough given the actual tournament format. USA plays at 12:00, and I made the article read that way. (Sorry if that sounds curt, it is late and I am tired and frustrated.) MrArticleOne (talk) 05:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

As proof of how ridiculously over-engineered this solution with the dumb templates was, the text on the template reads: "The purpose of this template is to collect source text used in several articles in one place, in order to minimize maintenance and storage space." There's exactly 1 article that links to the template (other than this talk page). There was no need to set up those templates in the first place. MrArticleOne (talk) 05:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The templates are designed so they also can be transcluded on the relevant Nations at the 2010 Winter Olympics articles, such as United States at the 2010 Winter Olympics#Ice hockey. They are currently only linked to 1 because the matchups have not been set yet. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Nonetheless, it seems like a solution which is not sufficiently flexible for the tournament format, no? That seems like a pretty elaborately engineered solution if that's all the more places it's going to be transcluded. It's not like we're talking a standings table for a league with 30 teams and/or games being played every day for months. MrArticleOne (talk) 06:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, if I understand you, someone would have to manually select the relevant template to include it for transclusion on the national pages, so I don't see where the deviation here causes any kind of problem. There's an incongruity between the title and the content, but I guess I'm not seeing why that matters. Someone was still going to have to go in and see that Team X played in the 1D game, even if the IIHF didn't have USA and CAN locked into particular time slots. MrArticleOne (talk) 06:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Look, I'm not trying to be a jerk about this (I'm up late and feeling tired and cross), and I was unaware of the Nations thing, so if this interferes with that, I'm sorry. But some sort of solution is going to need to be produced anyway. My hope had been to put as much accurate information on the page to try and discourage rogue editors, but that hasn't seemed to work. MrArticleOne (talk) 06:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I wasn't involved in the discussions regarding the creation of these and other 2010 Winter Olympics convenience templates, so I cannot answer your concerns, nor have I been able to yet locate where those discussions have been archived. I will however agree that the templates for the qualification round, quarterfinals and semifinals should not have been named that way, and should have instead been based on the date and time of each contest. In hindsight, I don't think there was any consideration that Olympic officials might change the order in which the matches would be played so they can maximize viewership (which I assume is the reason why they are scheduling the USA team to play at 12:00). Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It was announced right from the get-go that if the USA or CAN qualified for the Quarters or Semis, they were locked into particular time slots (although it was asked elsewhere here which would take precedence if they played each other). Unfortunate that this wasn't set up with an eye towards that. I, too, suspect that it was a bid to maximize viewership, to some extent. Canada was guaranteed the best time slot, in "prime time," and it looks like they're setting USA to play at 12:00 because that's the 2nd-best time (better then than this 9pm slot that's 12am in the eastern time zone). So I guess it's set to maximize Canadian viewing, and give USA the best of what's left. Which makes sense, I bet the Ice Dancing tonight would have gotten better ratings in USA than the hockey game even if the Ice Dancing were on MSNBC and the hockey on NBC. MrArticleOne (talk) 06:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

SWE/FIN ramifications

Just FYI, I am disinclined to type out all of the various goal differential variations (they kind of speak for themselves), but note that if FIN/SWE goes to overtime, no matter who wins, USA would be 1D and the winner of this game would be 2D. MrArticleOne (talk) 05:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Protection

Could we please get some article protection starting Tuesday? The flood of anonymous editors making inaccurate, speculative, and premature edits is too much to handle. MrArticleOne (talk) 07:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I would kill for this page to get protected for the remainder of the tournament and maybe a week after it's over, but I'm not confident it would happen unless the article got a ton of vandalism. I guess it wouldn't hurt to try. Tampabay721 (talk) 07:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Selänne <-> Watson?

According to Ice hockey at the 1924 Winter Olympics, Harry Watson scored 46 points, not 36.

Which is right?

LarRan (talk) 12:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Back in those days only goals were officially counted, not assists and officially Watson scored only 36 times [3]. --K'tithrak Mang (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

That's actually incorrect. Before the 1931-1932 season in the NHL, only one assist was given on goals. Beginning with the 1931-32 season, the NHL was giving up to two assists on goals. So in 1924, the NHL was handing out an assist on goals - whether or not these were recorded at the Olympics is another matter though. Lordhong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.226.218.130 (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to add a little more info on assists back in the days, forward passes were not permitted (only backward passes). The only way to move the puck forward was to skate with it, or shoot. There were much less passes then, and as a result, only one assist was recorded. Games were 45min (not 60), only 9 players per team - completely different dynamics. Much like world records are often beaten with new techniques or equipment, same goes with scoring totals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.226.218.130 (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

wrong schedule of Qualification playoffs

Qualification playoffs schedule is (IMHO) wrong. According to IIHF schedule the right schedule is like this:

Tue 23.02

1. 12.00 CHP SUI-BLR
2. 16.30 CHP CAN-GER
3. 19.00 UBC CZE-LAT
4. 21.00 CHP SVK-NOR

In the other words the first and third line of the playoffs shedule are wrong. Also CZE plays in UBC and SUI in CHP.

212.67.76.7 (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll agree and make the changes. Tampabay721 (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Qualification

Isn't it more correct to say that Canada qualified automatically as the host nation rather than on international rankings? Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 01:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's kind of six of one and half a dozen of the other. Although Canada had already qualified automatically as the host country, when the criteria was the top 9 (or whatever it was) in the IIHF rankings, Canada "counted" toward that, they didn't extend it down to 10th since Canada had already qualified. MrArticleOne (talk) 01:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it was always just top nine? Then I guess it doesn't really matter. I know in the Beijing Olympics certain incidental automatic qualifiers for various events afforded berths to lower placings based on international rankings. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 02:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It was the top 9 in the IIHF World Ranking after the 2008 IIHF World Championship. Some teams, Canada included, had in fact clinched a spot in the top 9 before that tournament even started; Canada could have finished in last place and still would have finished in the top 9. And, it wasn't extended to the 10th place team in the rankings even though Canada had already qualified as the host. So, it's kind of a shrug as to which you consider to take primacy. Personally, I thought it was foolish to choose and seed the teams based on the rankings after 2008 instead of 2009. The seedings and groupings especially under-valued Switzerland, whose strong performance (for SUI) at the 2009 World Championship ended up a precursor of their good showing (for SUI) at the Olympics. I imagine Canada would rather it had been BLR than SUI in Group A now! MrArticleOne (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

For it to be correct to say that Canada qualified automatically, there would have to be at least a single reference somewhere from the ioc or the iihf to indicate that that is true. There is not. 174.90.245.169 (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Home team

Maybe I missed it, but the higher ranked team for every elimination game is considered the 'home team' with last line change. I suggest some mention of that be added to the article. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. For example, in the semifinal 2 game, Canada will be the home team even though they are F3 and not F2. See the IIHF rules.[4] Dannyfarkas (talk) 07:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Final Rankings

Should a final rankings table, similar to the one present in the Women's tournament for this Olympics, be added to the bottom of this page? Any objections to this?
Blocparty22 (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's a shout out to all the edit makers of this page: Thank you all very much for the work that you've done on this page. It's made following the hockey tournament very enjoyable.  :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.27.121 (talk) 02:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Attendance?

Where are these attendance figures coming from? Were there really only 5,461 people watching Finland vs Czech Rep? Jpatokal (talk) 02:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

They're from here, when you click on the "summary" link for each game. As for your second question, yes, because Doug Mitchell Thunderbird Sports Centre only holds 6,800 at most. Tampabay721 (talk) 04:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Goals Against Average and Save%

I heard that the shootout goals/saves count in the final stats of goaltenders, not sure if it's true but isn't that kind of unfair to goalies? GWST11 (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

"Medalists" section in the infobox

Is it really necessary for it to show a country's name twice, once for the country's article and then its article for that year's olympics? I see it was done in 2006, but isn't it a little redundant to show both "Finland" and then " Finland" right after it, even if they link to two different articles? Tampabay721 (talk) 05:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that looks kind of tacky. MrArticleOne (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ice hockey at the 2010 Winter Olympics – Men's tournament. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100226211915/http://www.iihf.com/en/channels10/olympics-2010/home/men/format.html to http://www.iihf.com/en/channels10/olympics-2010/home/men/format.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ice hockey at the 2010 Winter Olympics – Men's tournament. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604131348/http://www.iihf.com/channels10/olympics-2010/news/news-singleview-world-championship-2009/article/triple-gold-for-eric-staal.html?tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=3555&cHash=90c4ddbe30 to http://www.iihf.com/channels10/olympics-2010/news/news-singleview-world-championship-2009/article/triple-gold-for-eric-staal.html?tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=3555&cHash=90c4ddbe30

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)