Talk:Ice hockey at the 1936 Winter Olympics

message: Since this page is for the 1936 games, if someone could indicate which UK players were actual Canadians, then it would relate.
::Only Gordon Dailley was born in Canada, the rest were all born in Great Britain... though some learned how to play the game in Canada. Certain ice hockey fans like to "exagerate" where the players were actually from because its probably embrassing for Canada to lose at their main sport to Great Britain. :p - Yorkshirian (talk) 03:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: TSN for one exaggerates by saying that 11 of the UK players were born in Canada, obviously untrue.  However, the star of the UK team (Foster) was Scottish born but clearly a Canadian citizen.  He was blocked from competing by the CAHA, but Canada allowed him (and Archer) to play.  Podneiks states in his book that these olympics were the basis of new tougher rules for "country jumping."  These were not players who merely learned the game in Canada, they were Canadian, and though sometimes exaggerated, it was not, and is not embarassing to lose to some of the best amateur  Canadian hockey players of their time.18abruce (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Nationality

message: * In the medal round, it lists each team's record and shows the games played. However, the records indicate that each team played three games, and it only shows two games for each team. Does anybody know the actual results? I'll look into this... The Disco King 21:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Games

message: This website  shows a slightly different roster than the one in the article. AMCKen (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Canadian Players

message: Since as a hockey enthousiast these outcomes seem rather surprising, is this comparable to the miracle on ice for the UK. 
If it isnt because there where many NHLers or those who played in Canada why did this only happen once? Why did uk become a medal contender in the future? 
As of right now it seems as shocking as say Latvia or Belarus winning the Olympic gold in hockey.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.3.250 (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  please be more specific experts 

message: The way the article currently reads seems somewhat bias, as if it's attempting to put the British team in a negative light. Inferring the win was more for Canada than Britian. Specifically, the line: "While only one player on the team was born in Canada, nine of the thirteen players on the roster grew up in Canada, and eleven had played previously in Canada. Could this be written with less a bias tone? "Stuartea (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There was (and still is) a significant amount of controversy over the roster of the British team.  I am not sure bias is the issue, but perhaps more explanation of what the issue was at the time is needed.  What I mean is, if you read an encyclopedia, or Podniecks book on the history of the Olympics, the issue of the nationality of the British roster is what is primarily discussed.  According to Wallechinsky (The Complete Book of the Olympics) the americans believed that the British cheated, ignored the rules, and simply went unpunished. According to Phil Drackett (Total Hockey) the CAHA would never have allowed the British to use Foster and Archer if they believed that they had a chance to win.  I understand how it could read, however, highlighting the primary story about the event is what an encyclopedia is supposed to do.  I do not believe it is biased, but I think it lacks adequate content about the event itself.18abruce (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Bruce, I think you're exactly right, thank you for the input - with that further detail it would make more sense as to why the article mentions their nationalities.Stuartea (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just wanted to add a thank you to Bruce for adding a great deal of clarity to this article. I've removed the POV banner.  Stuartea (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think there's still major problem with the text as it is at the moment. The sentences "The CAHA, upon discovering that the rosters of the British and French teams were made up of primarily Canadians, whom they believed were ineligible, lodged a protest, and suspended the players in question. As a result, the IIHF voted unanimously to ban Alex Archer and James Foster, however before tournament play began, Canada withdrew their protest." appear to suggest that the Canadians protested against the British team on the grounds that some of the players were not eligible to play for Great Britain. This was never the case. The Canadian protest was against Archer and Foster on the grounds that they had left Canada to join a British club without asking permission from the CAHA. I don't have the book quoted as a reference but I could point out some original news reports at google news and a number of other books to back my case. However I'll hold off editing it until I get some feedback. No point in starting an edit war. Topcardi (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The CAHA believed many players on both the French and British teams were ineligible, the key term being "believed".  A book on the history of the Olympics, the official history book of the NHL, and the Passionhockey.com all agree on this.  If it was only about two players on the British roster, why the protest against the French team?  If their protests were baseless, provide the evidence for that, IOC rules, or LIHG rules, whatever.  We know that the IIHF ruled unanamously about "Foster and Archer" but we don't know if their other protests were dismissed or ignored.  The American source for the Olympics believes "ignored", the French source dosen't say but indicates that the French contemplated boycotting over Canada's accusations, and says that the Canadians did not drop their protest with them.  It has never been in doubt that the Canadians believed many players to be ineligible, but the evidence suggests (to me) that the existing rules (unless your sources say this Tocardi) could not stop anyone but Archer and Foster.  I am not trying to be combative, but trying to present what other encyclopedias say as being true.18abruce (talk) 20:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I agree with you about the protests about the French team but the protests aginst GB were never about nationality. Here's a quote from this book http://www.icehockeyuk.co.uk/pride-glory--p175605 concerning a meeting  at the 1936 Olympics."Ab Gilroy of the CAHA addressed the meeting and said "We do not claim against the composition of the British team, or question its' nationality nor question its' professionalism. We question only the application, in other countries, of sanctions madde by Canada". Basically the argument against the French players like this guy http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Frank_Cadorette is that they were not French citizens but that argument couldn't be made against the Brits. To be honest I think the Canadian sources suffer from historical revisionism. Topcardi (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is why I used no Canadian sources at all, the primary statement came from france, and was supported by two american sources, there are no Canadian sources cited in this article.  I appreciate the point you raise though, and the sources, it raising some strange questions about citizenship in that era then dosen't it?  Podnieks takes some issue with what he calls "country jumping" in regards to the British roster, and states that roster rules had to be made more specific after that tournament.  His was the only Canadian source I had available and I chose not to use it despite the fact that he was writing on behalf of the IIHF, because of the fear of the appearance of bias.  Change whatever you like, make sure you take into account that you are disagreeing with people who were paid to write on the subject who were from neither Canada nor the UK.18abruce (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

text: My last statement reads as rather arrogant, I apologize18abruce (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly didn't read it as arrogant so no offence was taken.  I'll have a good think about this and try to work something that's fair to both sides over the weekend. I'm pretty sure Podnieks is correct that the rules were tightened after 1936. I think hockey's now got tighter restrictions on who can play for national team than pretty much any other sport. I think the problem prior to WW2 is that the concept of Canadian citizenship didn't exist in a legal sense. Everybody in the British Empire was a British subject and that was that. I know my great-grandparents, who lived in Vancouver, only got a Canadian passport in the fifties after living there for nearly half a century. Topcardi (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Appreciate that.  Interesting to note as well, the author of the article in "Total Hockey" is actually UK journalist Phil Drackett, though I attributed the citations to Duplacey since he was the editor of the encyclopedia (a Canadian putting together an American publication).  He says that CAHA president Gilroy, "objected to a number of players in the English league, including some of the Olympic team, because they allegedly did not have permission to leave the jurisdiction of his association."   Interesting to note that one of the players he objected to ending up playing for team Canada--Jimmy Haggerty.  You have to wonder how "some" ended up being only two in the speech you quote.  If the "doyen of British Ice Hockey Journalists" believes that it was more than two players at issue, I wonder how and why it changed to just the two in question when he went before the IIHF.  And the Haggerty situation is very interesting.  Thank you for challenging me to dig deeper.  And you are right about some Canadian sources, TSN certainly distorts the truth.18abruce (talk) 22:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: The way the infobox is designed, the flags are incorrect for Germany, Canada and the United States. If it were an easy fix, I'd do it myself. Srnec (talk) 02:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed Canada and USA, not sure what to do about Germany, but I will find someone who knows how.18abruce (talk) 03:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  you need to do this. Frietjes (talk) 17:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you both. Srnec (talk) 00:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flags in infobox

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ice hockey at the 1936 Winter Olympics. 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/20060213103315/http://www.collectionscanada.ca/hockey/024002-2500-e.html to http://www.collectionscanada.ca/hockey/024002-2500-e.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: For this 1936 tournament, we can determine the first criterion and potentially relevant criteria as follows: Since Germany was the champion of first-round Group A despite losing to the United States, we can determine that the first criterion had nothing to do with direct games amongst the tied teams simply by reading the Official Report.  
Page 137 of Lion in Winter: A Complete Record of Great Britain at the Olympic, World and European Ice Hockey Championships, 1910-1981 further indicates that the U.S. could have deprived "the British of the gold medals next day if they beat Canada 1-0 or 5-1 to achieve a better goal average than their rivals."  
From this, we can infer that goal difference is not the first criterion, as a 1-0 victory over Canada would clearly leave the U.S. team (+3) behind G.B. (+6).  
We also conclude that goals scored is not the first criterion, as a 1-0 victory over Canada would again leave the U.S. team (3) behind G.B. (7).
In case anyone wanted to argue that goals against is the first criterion, I would say there is no record of that ever happening in international ice hockey competitions.
We then can conclude and agree with Lion in Winter that goal average is the first criterion. I personally prefer the term goal ratio over goal average because GA may be confused between Goals Against and Goal Average. I acknowledge that goal quotient is also sometimes used.
As for subsequent criteria, there is no clear indication. It could be goal difference, goals scored, goals allowed or anything involving direct games amongst the tied teams.
If we know that the U.S. would deprive G.B. of the gold medal with a 5-1 win over Canada, with U.S. and G.B. both having a total of seven goals scored and one goal allowed, and with their direct game tied, what criterion would break the tie? First of all, none of the above.
Other options we can eliminate: Placement in the first round, as that would have favored G.B.; placement in the previous World Championship, as that also would have favored G.B. 
I would then consider our modern tie-breaking formula, established in the 2006-2007 season, for another possibility--points against the closest best-ranked team outside the sub-group. If applied to our 1936 scenario, that would be points against Canada--which would not break the tie. Then because in 1936, we observe goal ratio over goal difference, we can look to goal ratio vs. Canada as the deciding criterion. For this scenario, U.S. would have a goal ratio of 5 (5/1) and G.B. would have a goal ratio of 2 (2/1).
We may conclude then, that if U.S. had defeated Canada 5-1, the goal ratio vs Canada would have been the deciding criterion between U.S and G.B. I cannot say conclusively though if Canada would be chosen for comparison over Czechoslovakia because they had more points or because they were closer to the "subgroup."
Thankfully, I found Lion in Winter for free on Google Books. Joel225sp (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tie breaking formula