The game: Tampa Bay vs. Montreal (broadcast in French).
Why I chose it: Parce que le match est emission en Francais, mais oui. Which means they pronounced the honkin' tall French captain's name properly.
My new French vocabulary: Tirs a but: shots on goal. Match joues: games played. Accroche: hooking.
The rule: Section 6, Physical Fouls. Rule 43, Charging.
Number of sections in the rule: 6.
Definition: 43.1, Charging. A minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player who skates or jumps into, or charges an opponent in any manner. Charging shall mean the actions of a player who as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner. A "charge" may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice. This also outlines the differences between when to impose a minor (based on degree of violence of the check), major (based on degree of violence of the check), match (attempted to or deliberately injured opponent) or game misconduct (injury to face or head).
My favorite highlight: I have special affection for netminders, so this one should come as no suprise: A minor, major or a major and a game misconduct shall be imposed on a player who charges a goalkeeper while the goalkeeper is within his goal crease. A goalkeeper is not "fair game" just because he is outside the goal crease area. The appropriate penalty should be assessed in every case where an opposing player makes unnecessary contact with a goalkeeper. However, incidental contact, at the discretion of the Referee, will be permitted when the goalkeeper is in the act of playing the puck outside his goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.
The final score: Montreal 2, Tampa Bay 1.
The morals of the story:
The game: This is hockey, so this rule will be violated, repeatedly. The only real question here is how far did the player travel and what constitutes "violent?" Most truly loyal hockey fans will tell you that unless the player is unconscious, bleeding or unable to move, it's not violent, carry on. Most refs appear to agree. On the other hand, you can see from this rule how important netminders are to a team. Charging the goaltender is no more excusable than it is for a player, even if he's "out out of the zone." Think it's too easy on them? Think again. Most teams have two goaltenders. If they got charged with the same frequency and aggression as players, even the backup would be down. Like a rock.
Life: Maybe we don't get physically charged in life, but long before it's done we've all been charged in other ways: divorce, bankruptcy, illness, betrayal, cheating by others in work or life. What if we had referees who put the offenders in a box for two minutes? If your coworker cheats or lies to get ahead, they get to sit in a windowless cube with no decorations or personal items, a Radio Shack computer from 1980 that takes up all of the free desk space and a co-worker in the immediate next door cube who spends all day on her cell phone gossiping about her boyfriend who's just not that into her. If your bank told you a balloon mortagage would be a good idea and you default on the loan, they should be forced to live in your house while it slowly falls apart during foreclosure, sans heat, electricity or running water. Penalty boxes don't exactly stop others from charging, but they do slow down the frequency and there is justice with a small j.
Next up: Section 6, Physical Fouls. Rule 44, Checking from Behind.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Monday, December 28, 2009
Day 42, Rule 42
The games: Tampa Bay vs. Boston.
Why I chose it: Tampa Bay's on the comeback trail, and the Z-man and French captain are looking sharp.
My peeve: I was going to switch now and again to the Montreal vs. Ottawa game, but alas there was no all-French broadcast so I couldn't listen and learn.
The rule: Section 6, Physical Fouls. Rule 42, Boarding.
Number of sections in the rule: 6.
Definition: This one is clearly defined on paper, but it's greatly dependent on the referee's judgment. Here it is:
42.1, Boarding. A boarding penalty shall be imposed on any player who checks an opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to be thrown violently in the boards. The severity of the penalty, based upon the degree of violence of the impact with the boards, shall be at the discretion of the Referee. The Ref can impose a minor or major penalty (based on the degree of violence of the impact), match penalty (if the player attempted to or deliberately injured his opponent by boarding), or game misconduct penalty (foul resulting in an injury to the face or head of an opponent).
My favorite highlight: Second half of 42.1, Boarding. There is an enormous amount of judgment involved in the application of this rule by the Referees. The onus is on the player applying the check to ensure his opponent is not in a vulnerable position and if so, he must avoid the contact. However, there is also a responsibility on the player with the puck to avoid placing himself in a dangerous and vulnerable position. This balance must be considered by the Referees when applying this rule. Any unnecessary contact with a player playing the puck on an obvious "icing" or "off-side" play which results in that player being knocked into the boards is "boarding"...and in other instances where there is no contact with the boards, it should be treated as "charging."
The final score: Tampa Bay 2, Boston 1. And note to you critics of Honkin' Tall French Captain's slump who didn't watch this one because you didn't see the point...he was the first star of the night and set up the game opening goal. One word: comeback. With a Capital C.
The morals of the story:
The game: It's easy for fans to pass judgment on players, officials and goal judges, because of course we know and see all from our vantage point above the glass or on the close up replay on Versus. This rule is proof that it's never as easy as it looks. What if the player who got checked put himself in a vulnerable and dangerous position? There's no rule in this book for players who put themselves in harm's way knowing they could get hurt. Maybe there should be: Rule 89, Blame. If a player playing the puck puts himself in a dangerous and vulnerable position (near the boards, in the middle of a fight between other players, into the path of an oncoming defenseman on open ice, etc.), there shall be no penalty and play shall continue while the player retires to the bench to rethink a few things.
Life: This rule reminds me of when I got mugged in New York City and the cops bascially did nothing to help me except file a report because in their book, it was my fault: I was walking home alone without watching my ass. It was just like this rule: only the mugger didn't do his part and avoid the check. I agree we should take steps to protect ourselves, but let's face it. If someone wants to hurt you, they will find a way to do it. To this day, I don't carry valuables in my bag, I don't spend more than $3o on a handbag, I watch the sidewalk ahead and move to the side with less riff raff loitering around doorways, I don't answer people who talk to me on the bus and I look in the window reflections in stores so I can check who's behind me. Is it silly? Yes. But I've never been mugged since.
P.S. I did get some justice. There was no American money in that purse he stole. I'd been in Spain and all he got away with was a few hundred Pesetas and a credit card I cancelled before I called the cops.
Next up on 12/30: Section 6, Physical Fouls. Rule 43, Charging.
Why I chose it: Tampa Bay's on the comeback trail, and the Z-man and French captain are looking sharp.
My peeve: I was going to switch now and again to the Montreal vs. Ottawa game, but alas there was no all-French broadcast so I couldn't listen and learn.
The rule: Section 6, Physical Fouls. Rule 42, Boarding.
Number of sections in the rule: 6.
Definition: This one is clearly defined on paper, but it's greatly dependent on the referee's judgment. Here it is:
42.1, Boarding. A boarding penalty shall be imposed on any player who checks an opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to be thrown violently in the boards. The severity of the penalty, based upon the degree of violence of the impact with the boards, shall be at the discretion of the Referee. The Ref can impose a minor or major penalty (based on the degree of violence of the impact), match penalty (if the player attempted to or deliberately injured his opponent by boarding), or game misconduct penalty (foul resulting in an injury to the face or head of an opponent).
My favorite highlight: Second half of 42.1, Boarding. There is an enormous amount of judgment involved in the application of this rule by the Referees. The onus is on the player applying the check to ensure his opponent is not in a vulnerable position and if so, he must avoid the contact. However, there is also a responsibility on the player with the puck to avoid placing himself in a dangerous and vulnerable position. This balance must be considered by the Referees when applying this rule. Any unnecessary contact with a player playing the puck on an obvious "icing" or "off-side" play which results in that player being knocked into the boards is "boarding"...and in other instances where there is no contact with the boards, it should be treated as "charging."
The final score: Tampa Bay 2, Boston 1. And note to you critics of Honkin' Tall French Captain's slump who didn't watch this one because you didn't see the point...he was the first star of the night and set up the game opening goal. One word: comeback. With a Capital C.
The morals of the story:
The game: It's easy for fans to pass judgment on players, officials and goal judges, because of course we know and see all from our vantage point above the glass or on the close up replay on Versus. This rule is proof that it's never as easy as it looks. What if the player who got checked put himself in a vulnerable and dangerous position? There's no rule in this book for players who put themselves in harm's way knowing they could get hurt. Maybe there should be: Rule 89, Blame. If a player playing the puck puts himself in a dangerous and vulnerable position (near the boards, in the middle of a fight between other players, into the path of an oncoming defenseman on open ice, etc.), there shall be no penalty and play shall continue while the player retires to the bench to rethink a few things.
Life: This rule reminds me of when I got mugged in New York City and the cops bascially did nothing to help me except file a report because in their book, it was my fault: I was walking home alone without watching my ass. It was just like this rule: only the mugger didn't do his part and avoid the check. I agree we should take steps to protect ourselves, but let's face it. If someone wants to hurt you, they will find a way to do it. To this day, I don't carry valuables in my bag, I don't spend more than $3o on a handbag, I watch the sidewalk ahead and move to the side with less riff raff loitering around doorways, I don't answer people who talk to me on the bus and I look in the window reflections in stores so I can check who's behind me. Is it silly? Yes. But I've never been mugged since.
P.S. I did get some justice. There was no American money in that purse he stole. I'd been in Spain and all he got away with was a few hundred Pesetas and a credit card I cancelled before I called the cops.
Next up on 12/30: Section 6, Physical Fouls. Rule 43, Charging.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Day 41, Rule 41
The game: IIHF World Junior Championship, USA vs. Switzerland.
Why I chose it: Two Winterhawks are facing off against each other in this one. Luke Walker is on Team USA and Nino Niederreiter is in the lineup for Switzerland.
Cool moment if you live in Portland: The announcer just mentioned that Nino plays for us. He's also in the starting lineup. On the other hand, Luke's in the box.
My peeve: The NHL is STILL debating hits to the head, late hits, whatever you call it. I'm writing in with my own suggestion for a new rule: Rule 88, Unnecessary Hits: any player who delivers a deliberate hit to the head with the intent to harm another player and remove them from the game will be automatically and permanently removed from active play, since they couldn't come up with a smarter, better way to win, like say, being a stronger, smarter, better conditioned player. Period. End of rule. No substitutions, no exceptions.
The rule: Section 5, Officials. Rule 41, Physical Abuse of Officials.
Number of sections in the rule: 8.
Definition: This rule defines game misconduct, the categories for automatic suspension (there are 3), the automatic suspension process and supplementary discipline. It includes offenses by coaches, managers and non-playing Club personnel and, not surprisingly, it requires that all Clubs provide adequate police or other security for the safety of players goalkeepers and officials. Category I carries the highest penalty (suspension for not less than 20 games) and must involve deliberate force with intent to injure. Category II is force without intent or spitting on an official and imposes a suspension of not less than 10 games. Category III is for threatening behavior like tossing equipment or spitting at officials and carries a suspension of not less than 3 games.
At the end of the day, it all boils down to the same thing, as defined by 41.1, Game Misconduct: Any Player who deliberately applies physical force in any manner against an official, in any manner attempts to injure an official, physically demeans, or deliberately applies physical force to an official solely for the purpose of getting free of such an official during or immediately following an altercation shall receive a game misconduct penalty. In addition, the following (41.2, 41.3, 41.4) disciplinary penalties shall apply.
My favorite highlight: 41.5 Automatic Suspension - Process: Immediately after the game in which such game misconduct penalty is imposed, the Referees shall, in consultation with the Linesmen, decide the category of the offense. To summarize: they must provide a verbal report to the NHL Director of Hockey Operations and they may file a written report with the Director to request a review as to the adequacy of the suspension. The NHLPA, the player and the club shall be notified of the Referees decision on the morning following the game. The League then holds a conference call with the NHLPA to review the Referees decision and will refrain from public comment affirming the Referees application of the rule until that call is complete. A hearing can be requested by the player or the officials. For Category I and II offenses, the NHL must conduct the hearing in person. For Category III offenses only, the NHL may conduct the hearing by phone.
The final score: TBD. It's tied at 0 at the first intermission. Will update later.
The morals of the story:
The game: It's one thing if players get into it with each other - that's a given. But how stupid do you have to be to get into it with an official? It's not like player fights, where it's like who started what? Dude, if you hit, spit or throw something at the guys wearing stripes, even without intent, you're gonna go down. And if you're a marquee player, the team's going down with you. Wanna get mad? Take the Keith Ballard route and hit your own teammate, because apparently the NHL doesn't penalize for that.
Life: This is the hockey equivalent of a trial by jury for criminals, complete with an appeals (review) process. Except in the NHL, punishment is swift, unrefuted and when the League makes a final decision, that's it. You do the crime, it gets reviewed, you do the time. It should stop you, but just like life, it rarely does. Our justice system needs this rule. Here's how my system would work:
Category I - Automatic suspension from leisure-based activities in which you might have any fun, relegating you to nothing more than commuting to work, eating food that you don't like and watching news (no cable, no internet free movies, nothing) for no less than 20 days for any individual who does the following: texting or talking on the cell phone or being drunk while driving, letting your dog pee on the neighbor's newly planted pansies and telling the clerk who can't find the price tag that an item was $1.99 when it was really $4.99 and you know it.
Category II - Automatic suspension from leisure-based activities, with occasional snacks on food you like and one hour of TV other than news for no less than 10 days for individuals who do the following: cuts in front of me in line because I'm alone and they figure they can just slip in and I won't say anything because nobody's got my back, speeding in school zones, residential areas or two lane roads because you're busy committing the first offense above, and complaining to the clerk at Starbucks because they put full fat in your latte instead of fat-free. On the last offense, get over it and live life.
Category III - Automatic suspension from leisure-based activities, with one meal of food you like and two hours of TV other than news for no less than 3 days for individuals who do the following: interrupt a live conversation to check their PDA or take a cell phone call, complain about how your favorite athletic team isn't scoring or is generally sucking when you yourself haven't seen the inside of a gym since Wayne Gretzky's rookie season, try to drift past a stop sign or slip out of a parking lot into oncoming traffic in order to cut in front of drivers who clearly have the right of way by forcing them to stop or let you in because otherwise they'd hit you. Special note to drivers who do this to me: I will honk, stop only for the purpose of flipping you off vociferously and to photograph your license plate with my cell phone camera so I can send it to the DMV, and then drive around you.
Next up on 12/28: Section 6, Physical Fouls. Rule 42, Boarding.
Why I chose it: Two Winterhawks are facing off against each other in this one. Luke Walker is on Team USA and Nino Niederreiter is in the lineup for Switzerland.
Cool moment if you live in Portland: The announcer just mentioned that Nino plays for us. He's also in the starting lineup. On the other hand, Luke's in the box.
My peeve: The NHL is STILL debating hits to the head, late hits, whatever you call it. I'm writing in with my own suggestion for a new rule: Rule 88, Unnecessary Hits: any player who delivers a deliberate hit to the head with the intent to harm another player and remove them from the game will be automatically and permanently removed from active play, since they couldn't come up with a smarter, better way to win, like say, being a stronger, smarter, better conditioned player. Period. End of rule. No substitutions, no exceptions.
The rule: Section 5, Officials. Rule 41, Physical Abuse of Officials.
Number of sections in the rule: 8.
Definition: This rule defines game misconduct, the categories for automatic suspension (there are 3), the automatic suspension process and supplementary discipline. It includes offenses by coaches, managers and non-playing Club personnel and, not surprisingly, it requires that all Clubs provide adequate police or other security for the safety of players goalkeepers and officials. Category I carries the highest penalty (suspension for not less than 20 games) and must involve deliberate force with intent to injure. Category II is force without intent or spitting on an official and imposes a suspension of not less than 10 games. Category III is for threatening behavior like tossing equipment or spitting at officials and carries a suspension of not less than 3 games.
At the end of the day, it all boils down to the same thing, as defined by 41.1, Game Misconduct: Any Player who deliberately applies physical force in any manner against an official, in any manner attempts to injure an official, physically demeans, or deliberately applies physical force to an official solely for the purpose of getting free of such an official during or immediately following an altercation shall receive a game misconduct penalty. In addition, the following (41.2, 41.3, 41.4) disciplinary penalties shall apply.
My favorite highlight: 41.5 Automatic Suspension - Process: Immediately after the game in which such game misconduct penalty is imposed, the Referees shall, in consultation with the Linesmen, decide the category of the offense. To summarize: they must provide a verbal report to the NHL Director of Hockey Operations and they may file a written report with the Director to request a review as to the adequacy of the suspension. The NHLPA, the player and the club shall be notified of the Referees decision on the morning following the game. The League then holds a conference call with the NHLPA to review the Referees decision and will refrain from public comment affirming the Referees application of the rule until that call is complete. A hearing can be requested by the player or the officials. For Category I and II offenses, the NHL must conduct the hearing in person. For Category III offenses only, the NHL may conduct the hearing by phone.
The final score: TBD. It's tied at 0 at the first intermission. Will update later.
The morals of the story:
The game: It's one thing if players get into it with each other - that's a given. But how stupid do you have to be to get into it with an official? It's not like player fights, where it's like who started what? Dude, if you hit, spit or throw something at the guys wearing stripes, even without intent, you're gonna go down. And if you're a marquee player, the team's going down with you. Wanna get mad? Take the Keith Ballard route and hit your own teammate, because apparently the NHL doesn't penalize for that.
Life: This is the hockey equivalent of a trial by jury for criminals, complete with an appeals (review) process. Except in the NHL, punishment is swift, unrefuted and when the League makes a final decision, that's it. You do the crime, it gets reviewed, you do the time. It should stop you, but just like life, it rarely does. Our justice system needs this rule. Here's how my system would work:
Category I - Automatic suspension from leisure-based activities in which you might have any fun, relegating you to nothing more than commuting to work, eating food that you don't like and watching news (no cable, no internet free movies, nothing) for no less than 20 days for any individual who does the following: texting or talking on the cell phone or being drunk while driving, letting your dog pee on the neighbor's newly planted pansies and telling the clerk who can't find the price tag that an item was $1.99 when it was really $4.99 and you know it.
Category II - Automatic suspension from leisure-based activities, with occasional snacks on food you like and one hour of TV other than news for no less than 10 days for individuals who do the following: cuts in front of me in line because I'm alone and they figure they can just slip in and I won't say anything because nobody's got my back, speeding in school zones, residential areas or two lane roads because you're busy committing the first offense above, and complaining to the clerk at Starbucks because they put full fat in your latte instead of fat-free. On the last offense, get over it and live life.
Category III - Automatic suspension from leisure-based activities, with one meal of food you like and two hours of TV other than news for no less than 3 days for individuals who do the following: interrupt a live conversation to check their PDA or take a cell phone call, complain about how your favorite athletic team isn't scoring or is generally sucking when you yourself haven't seen the inside of a gym since Wayne Gretzky's rookie season, try to drift past a stop sign or slip out of a parking lot into oncoming traffic in order to cut in front of drivers who clearly have the right of way by forcing them to stop or let you in because otherwise they'd hit you. Special note to drivers who do this to me: I will honk, stop only for the purpose of flipping you off vociferously and to photograph your license plate with my cell phone camera so I can send it to the DMV, and then drive around you.
Next up on 12/28: Section 6, Physical Fouls. Rule 42, Boarding.
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Day 40, Rule 40
The game: IIHF World Junior Championships, USA vs. Slovakia.
Why I chose it: Portland Winterhawk Luke Walker, gruesome face injury and all, is on Team USA's roster.
The rule: Section 5, Officials. Rule 40, Abuse of Officials.
Number of sections in the rule: 6.
Definition: This provides a general description of abuse, and offers a more detailed description of the types of infractions for which minor, benech minor, misconduct and game misconducts may be imposed. This rule applies to verbal abuse of officials. For the same abuse of anyone other than the officials (players, coaches, managers, etc.), Rule 75, Unsportsmanlike Conduct, is applied.
The general description of this rule states that "a player, goalkeeper, Coach or non-playing person shall not challenge or dispute the rulings of an on-ice official before, during or after a game. A player, goalkeeper, Coach or non-playing person shall not display unsportsmanlike coonduct, including, but not limited to, obscene, profane, or abusive language or gestures, comments of a personal nature intended to degrade an official, or persist in disputing a ruling after being told to stop or after being penalized for such behavior."
My favorite highlights (i.e. things even the most loyal of fans like myself may not have known):
40.2 Minor Penalty, subsection iii: Forbids banging on the boards in protest of an official's decision. No, it doesn't include hitting your own teammates in the head, a la the Keith Ballard whack to Thomas Vokoun's noggin. But, it does state that "if this is done in order to get the attention of the on-ice officials for a legitimate reason (e.g. serious injury, illness, etc.) then discretion must be exercised by the Referee. So, if Ballard had banged the boards AFTER he hit Vokoun to signal for help, that would have been ok.
40.3 Bench Minor Penalty, subsection ii: Any unidentifiable player or any Coach or non-playing person who uses obscene, profane or abusive language or gesture directed at an on-ice official or uses the name of any official coupled with any vociferous remarks. This I knew, but I just love that the NHL uses a word like "vociferous" in their rule book. Vociferous means loud, bellowing or blatant. So basically, if you make your comments quietly and/or to yourself, you don't get dinged.
40.4, Misconduct Penalty, subsection ii: Any player who intentionally knocks or shoots the puck out of the reach of an official who is retrieving it. This rule also applies to players who have already been assessed a minor or bench minor for unsportsmanlike conduct, and persist in doing so.
405. Game Misconduct Penalty, subsection vi: Any Player, Coach or non-playing person who throws or shoots any equipment or other object in the general direction of an official but does not come close to making any contact. This action may occur on or off the ice.
The final score: USA 7, Slovakia 3.
Morals of the story:
The game: Sportsmanlike conduct isn't exactly what hockey is known for, and let's face it, most fans wouldn't watch it if it was. But what if players and their managers and coaches were allowed to get away with anything? Fighting, yelling, swearing, banging the boards, holding, hooking, the whole nine yards. The only people doing their job on a given night would be the emergency personnel who hauled them out to the emergency room or the police station. We'd never get to see an Evgeni Malkin backhanded hat trick into the Carolina net. We'd never see Max Talbot score the Game 7 winner. We'd never watch Martin Brodeur set another record. It would be full scale, unmitigated carnage. Thanks to rules like this, there is beauty in hockey and yes, Virginia, there is sportsmanship.
Life: One of my friends' children asked me once what the penalty box was for. I told him it was a time-out for grownups. That's exactly what this is. It's the hockey equivalent of a time-out, or if you're like me and grew up in the 70s when there was no stigma attached to it, it's like a spanking. Parents need this rule. If children persist in talking back or disputing a command to do or not do something after being told to stop or after being penalized for such behavior, they can be sent to a backyard penalty bench for a 10-minute misconduct. Officials, in this case parents, shall keep official reports of such behavior, so that when the little whippersnappers grow up and want their own iPhone, it will be dependent upon their previous record of sportsmanlike or unsportsmanlike behavior.
Next up on 12/27: Section 5, Officials. Rule 41, Physical Abuse of Officials.
Why I chose it: Portland Winterhawk Luke Walker, gruesome face injury and all, is on Team USA's roster.
The rule: Section 5, Officials. Rule 40, Abuse of Officials.
Number of sections in the rule: 6.
Definition: This provides a general description of abuse, and offers a more detailed description of the types of infractions for which minor, benech minor, misconduct and game misconducts may be imposed. This rule applies to verbal abuse of officials. For the same abuse of anyone other than the officials (players, coaches, managers, etc.), Rule 75, Unsportsmanlike Conduct, is applied.
The general description of this rule states that "a player, goalkeeper, Coach or non-playing person shall not challenge or dispute the rulings of an on-ice official before, during or after a game. A player, goalkeeper, Coach or non-playing person shall not display unsportsmanlike coonduct, including, but not limited to, obscene, profane, or abusive language or gestures, comments of a personal nature intended to degrade an official, or persist in disputing a ruling after being told to stop or after being penalized for such behavior."
My favorite highlights (i.e. things even the most loyal of fans like myself may not have known):
40.2 Minor Penalty, subsection iii: Forbids banging on the boards in protest of an official's decision. No, it doesn't include hitting your own teammates in the head, a la the Keith Ballard whack to Thomas Vokoun's noggin. But, it does state that "if this is done in order to get the attention of the on-ice officials for a legitimate reason (e.g. serious injury, illness, etc.) then discretion must be exercised by the Referee. So, if Ballard had banged the boards AFTER he hit Vokoun to signal for help, that would have been ok.
40.3 Bench Minor Penalty, subsection ii: Any unidentifiable player or any Coach or non-playing person who uses obscene, profane or abusive language or gesture directed at an on-ice official or uses the name of any official coupled with any vociferous remarks. This I knew, but I just love that the NHL uses a word like "vociferous" in their rule book. Vociferous means loud, bellowing or blatant. So basically, if you make your comments quietly and/or to yourself, you don't get dinged.
40.4, Misconduct Penalty, subsection ii: Any player who intentionally knocks or shoots the puck out of the reach of an official who is retrieving it. This rule also applies to players who have already been assessed a minor or bench minor for unsportsmanlike conduct, and persist in doing so.
405. Game Misconduct Penalty, subsection vi: Any Player, Coach or non-playing person who throws or shoots any equipment or other object in the general direction of an official but does not come close to making any contact. This action may occur on or off the ice.
The final score: USA 7, Slovakia 3.
Morals of the story:
The game: Sportsmanlike conduct isn't exactly what hockey is known for, and let's face it, most fans wouldn't watch it if it was. But what if players and their managers and coaches were allowed to get away with anything? Fighting, yelling, swearing, banging the boards, holding, hooking, the whole nine yards. The only people doing their job on a given night would be the emergency personnel who hauled them out to the emergency room or the police station. We'd never get to see an Evgeni Malkin backhanded hat trick into the Carolina net. We'd never see Max Talbot score the Game 7 winner. We'd never watch Martin Brodeur set another record. It would be full scale, unmitigated carnage. Thanks to rules like this, there is beauty in hockey and yes, Virginia, there is sportsmanship.
Life: One of my friends' children asked me once what the penalty box was for. I told him it was a time-out for grownups. That's exactly what this is. It's the hockey equivalent of a time-out, or if you're like me and grew up in the 70s when there was no stigma attached to it, it's like a spanking. Parents need this rule. If children persist in talking back or disputing a command to do or not do something after being told to stop or after being penalized for such behavior, they can be sent to a backyard penalty bench for a 10-minute misconduct. Officials, in this case parents, shall keep official reports of such behavior, so that when the little whippersnappers grow up and want their own iPhone, it will be dependent upon their previous record of sportsmanlike or unsportsmanlike behavior.
Next up on 12/27: Section 5, Officials. Rule 41, Physical Abuse of Officials.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Day 39, Rule 39
The game: Pittsburgh vs. Ottawa.
Why I chose it: To prove my theory that whenever the Pens lose in a spectacular way, like the Brodeur shutout, they roar back with a better-than-ever game. That includes singular players like Evgeni Malkin, who was the subject of a less than flattering headline in the Post-Gazette, "Malkin mired in a slump." He was smart, though, he just owned up. I love what he said about it. "I know my play is not good. I'm going to try the next game. I'm working hard today, tomorrow. It's a tough situation, but it will be alright." It's honest, it's sincere and he did exactly what he said he would.
The final score: Pittsburgh 8, Ottawa 2. Hat trick for Malkin. Theory proven. Slump officially over and done with.
The rule: Section 5, Officials. Rule 39, Video Goal Judge.
Number of sections in the rule: 6.
Definition: As the title implies, this individual is the one who conducts the video review of goals. I always thought it was just the questionable ones, but the general duties section states that that "every goal is to be reviewed by the video goal judge." This rule also outlines reports, situations subject to review (8 - including pucks batted in with the hand or foot, those that are high sticked in and puck in net prior to the net being dislodged), logistics and equipment, and verification of time.
My favorite highlight: 39.2, Goals: Upon making contact with the off-ice official at ice level, the Video Goal Judge should say initially that he is "looking at the play." Once the Video Goal Judge has reviewed the video and confirmed that the goal is valid, he should say that "it is a good goal." If there is a need to expand the review, the Video Goal Judge will advise the off-ice official at ice level and the Public Address Announcer that "the play is under review." The Announcer then announces that "play is under review." When the referee indicates there is to be a video review, all players (with the exception of the goalkeepers, who pretty much have to stay in the crease until pulled for empty net or letting in too many goals) will go to their respective players' bench immediately and failure to do so would result in a game misconduct penalty with a fine to the Coach. Love it - if the player's don't do as instructed, the Coach pays the price for not coralling them. And then they get ripped a new one the next day at practice. Perfect. More rules should be like this one.
Morals of the story:
The game: Fans who get in a bunch about missed scoring chances, penalties not called by the ref, imposing the wrong penalty on a player, disallowed goals and other various unfair infractions can take heart in the following: after almost being halfway through the rulebook, I can tell you that every inch of every game is watched, timed, reviewed and judged. We may not always like a call, but we can take heart in knowing that the officials didn't "phone it in" when making a call.
Life: This is totally like work, when your boss asks "where's that report I asked for yesterday" or "how's that spreadsheet coming?" and you say "I'm on it" to stall for time while you scramble to finish it. Also, I would not want to have a video goal judge in life. It may be a good thing in hockey, but I wouldn't want somebody watching, taping, reviewiewing and making judgments on my every move. On the other hand, perhaps it would have pre-empted a lot of errors in judgment, missed opportunities and poor life choices. It wouldn't be fun or fair, but it would prevent a lot of wasted time and opportunities.
Next up on 12/26: Section 5, Officials. Rule 40, Abuse of Officials.
Why I chose it: To prove my theory that whenever the Pens lose in a spectacular way, like the Brodeur shutout, they roar back with a better-than-ever game. That includes singular players like Evgeni Malkin, who was the subject of a less than flattering headline in the Post-Gazette, "Malkin mired in a slump." He was smart, though, he just owned up. I love what he said about it. "I know my play is not good. I'm going to try the next game. I'm working hard today, tomorrow. It's a tough situation, but it will be alright." It's honest, it's sincere and he did exactly what he said he would.
The final score: Pittsburgh 8, Ottawa 2. Hat trick for Malkin. Theory proven. Slump officially over and done with.
The rule: Section 5, Officials. Rule 39, Video Goal Judge.
Number of sections in the rule: 6.
Definition: As the title implies, this individual is the one who conducts the video review of goals. I always thought it was just the questionable ones, but the general duties section states that that "every goal is to be reviewed by the video goal judge." This rule also outlines reports, situations subject to review (8 - including pucks batted in with the hand or foot, those that are high sticked in and puck in net prior to the net being dislodged), logistics and equipment, and verification of time.
My favorite highlight: 39.2, Goals: Upon making contact with the off-ice official at ice level, the Video Goal Judge should say initially that he is "looking at the play." Once the Video Goal Judge has reviewed the video and confirmed that the goal is valid, he should say that "it is a good goal." If there is a need to expand the review, the Video Goal Judge will advise the off-ice official at ice level and the Public Address Announcer that "the play is under review." The Announcer then announces that "play is under review." When the referee indicates there is to be a video review, all players (with the exception of the goalkeepers, who pretty much have to stay in the crease until pulled for empty net or letting in too many goals) will go to their respective players' bench immediately and failure to do so would result in a game misconduct penalty with a fine to the Coach. Love it - if the player's don't do as instructed, the Coach pays the price for not coralling them. And then they get ripped a new one the next day at practice. Perfect. More rules should be like this one.
Morals of the story:
The game: Fans who get in a bunch about missed scoring chances, penalties not called by the ref, imposing the wrong penalty on a player, disallowed goals and other various unfair infractions can take heart in the following: after almost being halfway through the rulebook, I can tell you that every inch of every game is watched, timed, reviewed and judged. We may not always like a call, but we can take heart in knowing that the officials didn't "phone it in" when making a call.
Life: This is totally like work, when your boss asks "where's that report I asked for yesterday" or "how's that spreadsheet coming?" and you say "I'm on it" to stall for time while you scramble to finish it. Also, I would not want to have a video goal judge in life. It may be a good thing in hockey, but I wouldn't want somebody watching, taping, reviewiewing and making judgments on my every move. On the other hand, perhaps it would have pre-empted a lot of errors in judgment, missed opportunities and poor life choices. It wouldn't be fun or fair, but it would prevent a lot of wasted time and opportunities.
Next up on 12/26: Section 5, Officials. Rule 40, Abuse of Officials.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Day 38, Rule 38
The game: Pittsburgh vs. New Jersey.
Why I chose it: This game was going to go one of two ways. Pittsburgh wins and deprives Jersey goaltender Martin Brodeur of another record and possibly takes back their first place position in the Atlantic division from the Devils. OR Marty Brodeur sets yet another record and the Penguins hold tight in 2nd.
The outcome: If you don't know by now, the good news is that Martin Brodeur passed Terry Sawchuk for the all time shut out record. The bad news is he did it against my favorite team. Look at this way: 1) It was a noble sacrifice by the defending champions. 2) But not really, 'cause that last minute or so was a furious battle that proves even when a game is lost, it's not over until the buzzer sounds. Kudos to both sides for a demonstrating why we watch hockey in the first place.
The rule: Section 5, Officials. Rule 38, Real Time Scorers.
Number of sections in the rule: 3.
Definition: The duty of the Real Time Scorers is to electronically record all official statistics for the game played. This data shall be compiled and recorded in strict conformity with the instructions provided by the League. This rule also states that the Scoring System Manager shall provide reports to the home Club's pulic relations representative, who shall then distribute reports to the media and to each Club's coaches. I always think a life in the NHL must be so glamorous and exciting. But I'm coming to realize that really, most of the jobs are really not that different or more glamorous than corporate America. In between making sure exhausted, frustrated players don't say something stupid in the post-game interviews and being on-call 24/7, the PR person gets to round out the evening by distributing stat reports every night. It's glamorous with a small g.
My favorite highlight: 38.2, Real Time Scorers: There shall be appointed for duty at every game played in the League the following Real Time Scorers:
(i) Stats entry scorer
(ii) Stats entry scorer - not sure why this is listed twice. Maybe they forgot to distinguish home from visitor?
(iii) Time on ice scorer - Home
(iv) Time on ice scorer - Visitor
(v) Spotter - I want to know what this person does. Is it like the lookout in a bank robbery...if you see anything supicious, you notify the other scorers?
Assigned by the League to oversee the Real Time Scorers and the data collected is a Scoring System Manager (SSM), an off-ice official who is required to work one of the five (5) positions noted above in each game played. So, really there's only four Real Time Scorers, plus this dude, and his reponsibility changes with the game? My head hurts.
The final score: New Jersey 4, Pittsburgh 0.
The morals of the story:
The game: What if this position didn't exist? There would be no way of knowing that Martin Brodeur just set a new record. You couldn't tally up the Art Ross Trophy winner or prove that a team earned enough points to make the playoffs. Critics wouldn't have fodder to rip my favorite honkin' tall French captain. For those of us who prefer the written word over the language of numbers, anything that involves statistics is not even worth explaining to most of us. We'll never get it. But somebody gets it. Because somebody has to. Boring though this job may sound, it is everything to the players, who can get traded because they have too many penalty minutes or not enough goals. Without the people who do the math each night, the NHL would be nothing more than a very expensive game of pond hockey.
Life: Oh, this is just too easy to equate with life. In life, there shall be appointed for duty in every life lived the following Real Time Scorers:
(i) Childhood scorer: records all statistics from infant to 12, including height, weight, age, number of friends, grades in school, and so forth, along with the following: number of cookies stolen from the jar, total punishments served for breaking fragile household items you were told not to touch, and number of times you went to the principal's office for pouring glue in that boy's hair because he didn't like you, pushing someone off the swing because you didn't want to wait and other assorted infractions.
(ii) Puberty scorer: records all statistics from 12 to 18, including but not limited to the following: bad haircuts (i.e. pink dye, mohawks, etc.); number of your texts that your boyfriend proceeds to send to all his friends even though it was private; total homework assignments that were never done because your computer crashed, your email didn't send to the right address, etc. (in the stone age that was the 70s we used to just blame the dog, AND we wrote our homework assignments by hand, sometimes in pen if we were really brave, all before they made liquid paper and erasable pens); total emails/texts sent to the wrong boy during study hall who then proceeds to ask you out because silly him, he thought you actually liked him, and; all fashion choices, regardless of how stylish they seemed, and which you will regret by the time you turn 30.
(iii) Adulthood scorer (ages 18 - 40 and beyond): records all statistics for the following life choices, judgments and errors: number of times you skipped class in college or showed up late in favor of partying, hangovers, and general disillusionment with what you thought school and life was going to teach you; bad dates and poor boyfriend choices made because you thought "this time was going to be different, I can feel it"; jobs you took in pursuit of a career that really, around 35, started to look pretty pointless; mortgages defaulted on, rent paid for third-floor walk-up apartments that didn't have heat until early January and cold water three out of four mornings; number of times you asked yourself "is this it?" and wondered where you went wrong and thought about what life might have been: number of friends who turned out to be anything but; all those times you spent money on $3 lattes, expensive vacations or $700 shoes so that later you can officially regret it because you could have saved for a high-tech espresso machine, a house of your own and a second home in Italy.
Next up on 12/24: Section 5, Officials. Rule 39, Video Goal Judge.
Why I chose it: This game was going to go one of two ways. Pittsburgh wins and deprives Jersey goaltender Martin Brodeur of another record and possibly takes back their first place position in the Atlantic division from the Devils. OR Marty Brodeur sets yet another record and the Penguins hold tight in 2nd.
The outcome: If you don't know by now, the good news is that Martin Brodeur passed Terry Sawchuk for the all time shut out record. The bad news is he did it against my favorite team. Look at this way: 1) It was a noble sacrifice by the defending champions. 2) But not really, 'cause that last minute or so was a furious battle that proves even when a game is lost, it's not over until the buzzer sounds. Kudos to both sides for a demonstrating why we watch hockey in the first place.
The rule: Section 5, Officials. Rule 38, Real Time Scorers.
Number of sections in the rule: 3.
Definition: The duty of the Real Time Scorers is to electronically record all official statistics for the game played. This data shall be compiled and recorded in strict conformity with the instructions provided by the League. This rule also states that the Scoring System Manager shall provide reports to the home Club's pulic relations representative, who shall then distribute reports to the media and to each Club's coaches. I always think a life in the NHL must be so glamorous and exciting. But I'm coming to realize that really, most of the jobs are really not that different or more glamorous than corporate America. In between making sure exhausted, frustrated players don't say something stupid in the post-game interviews and being on-call 24/7, the PR person gets to round out the evening by distributing stat reports every night. It's glamorous with a small g.
My favorite highlight: 38.2, Real Time Scorers: There shall be appointed for duty at every game played in the League the following Real Time Scorers:
(i) Stats entry scorer
(ii) Stats entry scorer - not sure why this is listed twice. Maybe they forgot to distinguish home from visitor?
(iii) Time on ice scorer - Home
(iv) Time on ice scorer - Visitor
(v) Spotter - I want to know what this person does. Is it like the lookout in a bank robbery...if you see anything supicious, you notify the other scorers?
Assigned by the League to oversee the Real Time Scorers and the data collected is a Scoring System Manager (SSM), an off-ice official who is required to work one of the five (5) positions noted above in each game played. So, really there's only four Real Time Scorers, plus this dude, and his reponsibility changes with the game? My head hurts.
The final score: New Jersey 4, Pittsburgh 0.
The morals of the story:
The game: What if this position didn't exist? There would be no way of knowing that Martin Brodeur just set a new record. You couldn't tally up the Art Ross Trophy winner or prove that a team earned enough points to make the playoffs. Critics wouldn't have fodder to rip my favorite honkin' tall French captain. For those of us who prefer the written word over the language of numbers, anything that involves statistics is not even worth explaining to most of us. We'll never get it. But somebody gets it. Because somebody has to. Boring though this job may sound, it is everything to the players, who can get traded because they have too many penalty minutes or not enough goals. Without the people who do the math each night, the NHL would be nothing more than a very expensive game of pond hockey.
Life: Oh, this is just too easy to equate with life. In life, there shall be appointed for duty in every life lived the following Real Time Scorers:
(i) Childhood scorer: records all statistics from infant to 12, including height, weight, age, number of friends, grades in school, and so forth, along with the following: number of cookies stolen from the jar, total punishments served for breaking fragile household items you were told not to touch, and number of times you went to the principal's office for pouring glue in that boy's hair because he didn't like you, pushing someone off the swing because you didn't want to wait and other assorted infractions.
(ii) Puberty scorer: records all statistics from 12 to 18, including but not limited to the following: bad haircuts (i.e. pink dye, mohawks, etc.); number of your texts that your boyfriend proceeds to send to all his friends even though it was private; total homework assignments that were never done because your computer crashed, your email didn't send to the right address, etc. (in the stone age that was the 70s we used to just blame the dog, AND we wrote our homework assignments by hand, sometimes in pen if we were really brave, all before they made liquid paper and erasable pens); total emails/texts sent to the wrong boy during study hall who then proceeds to ask you out because silly him, he thought you actually liked him, and; all fashion choices, regardless of how stylish they seemed, and which you will regret by the time you turn 30.
(iii) Adulthood scorer (ages 18 - 40 and beyond): records all statistics for the following life choices, judgments and errors: number of times you skipped class in college or showed up late in favor of partying, hangovers, and general disillusionment with what you thought school and life was going to teach you; bad dates and poor boyfriend choices made because you thought "this time was going to be different, I can feel it"; jobs you took in pursuit of a career that really, around 35, started to look pretty pointless; mortgages defaulted on, rent paid for third-floor walk-up apartments that didn't have heat until early January and cold water three out of four mornings; number of times you asked yourself "is this it?" and wondered where you went wrong and thought about what life might have been: number of friends who turned out to be anything but; all those times you spent money on $3 lattes, expensive vacations or $700 shoes so that later you can officially regret it because you could have saved for a high-tech espresso machine, a house of your own and a second home in Italy.
Next up on 12/24: Section 5, Officials. Rule 39, Video Goal Judge.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Day 37, Rule 37
The games: Anaheim vs. Phoenix and Pittsburgh vs. Buffalo.
Why I chose them: My favorite Swiss goalie is in net against my pick for the NHL's "is this the year?" campaign. I was all psyched to see Ryan Miller in action for Buffalo, but alas his backup was on the job. Although his backup isn't too shabby, either.
My peeve: Our hometown heroes the Portland Winterhawks fell to third in our division after two straight losses. We as fans probably didn't help anything - the audience was in "oh crap I'm not ready for the holidays and I'm stuck working next week while my higher ups go on a ski vacation" mode. Totally asleep at the wheel, on our part. Although I must say, that fight Brett Ponich got into in the second period was 90 seconds (give or take) of unmitigated beauty. Saluting the audience afterwards put the cherry on top.
The rule: Section 5, Officials. Rule 37, Goal Judge.
Number of sections in the rule: 3.
Definition: This is a no - bullshit rule for one of the most important people in the rink. Per this rule, this individual shall "signal, normally by means of a red light, his decision as to whether the puck passed between the goal posts and entirely over the goal line. His only decision is whether the puck actually entered the net, not how or when it went in." Hello! I thought the red light went off automatically by some motion sensor.
My favorite highlights: 37.3, Location. There shall be one Goal Judge situated behind each goal (or in an area designated and approved by NHL Hockey Operations) in properly protected areas, if possible, so that there can be no interference with their activities. They shall not change goals during the game. In other words, they must be sectioned off in a protected area for their own safety, in case fans or players want to disupte his decision with verbal and physical force.
The final scores: Anaheim 4, Phoenix 2. Pittsburgh 2, Buffalo 1 (SO).
The morals of the story:
The game: Like life, sometimes the simplest thing is the most important thing. I want to know what the job description for this one looks like. Here's my take: Wanted: large, physically and mentally sturdy individual to declare goals scored in major NHL match-ups, including playoffs. Individual must be willing to tolerate verbal and possibly physical abuse and have absolutely no hobbies, personal conflicts, substance abuse issues or anything else that would lead to distraction during games and therefore interfere in their ability to keep their eye on the puck and declare a puck has gone into the net. Individual must have previous experience in jobs that require sitting still, watching a small piece of rubber and pushing large buttons. Individual must not show favoritism to their favorite team in making their decisions.
Life: If life had a goal judge, it would be good and bad. On the one hand, there would be no BS when you score a life goal (marriage, promotion, graduation,etc.) and you'd get the point, plain and simple. Goal in. Red light. Done. But it's never that easy. For example, what if the goal was making money and the winner cheated their way to it, like Wall Street bankers did for decades? What if it's scored by one of those people who think they're entitled to the world because life has never taught them any different? The goal judge only decides whether the puck went in, not how or why. For that, I'm afraid we'd need another job: circumstance judge. This individual would decide whether a goal was scored fairly by a morally upstanding person and if not, the goal would be disallowed. Their decision would be final and subject to dispute only if the individual can provide character references and clear a background check.
Next up: Section 5, Officials. Rule 38, Real Time Scorers.
Why I chose them: My favorite Swiss goalie is in net against my pick for the NHL's "is this the year?" campaign. I was all psyched to see Ryan Miller in action for Buffalo, but alas his backup was on the job. Although his backup isn't too shabby, either.
My peeve: Our hometown heroes the Portland Winterhawks fell to third in our division after two straight losses. We as fans probably didn't help anything - the audience was in "oh crap I'm not ready for the holidays and I'm stuck working next week while my higher ups go on a ski vacation" mode. Totally asleep at the wheel, on our part. Although I must say, that fight Brett Ponich got into in the second period was 90 seconds (give or take) of unmitigated beauty. Saluting the audience afterwards put the cherry on top.
The rule: Section 5, Officials. Rule 37, Goal Judge.
Number of sections in the rule: 3.
Definition: This is a no - bullshit rule for one of the most important people in the rink. Per this rule, this individual shall "signal, normally by means of a red light, his decision as to whether the puck passed between the goal posts and entirely over the goal line. His only decision is whether the puck actually entered the net, not how or when it went in." Hello! I thought the red light went off automatically by some motion sensor.
My favorite highlights: 37.3, Location. There shall be one Goal Judge situated behind each goal (or in an area designated and approved by NHL Hockey Operations) in properly protected areas, if possible, so that there can be no interference with their activities. They shall not change goals during the game. In other words, they must be sectioned off in a protected area for their own safety, in case fans or players want to disupte his decision with verbal and physical force.
The final scores: Anaheim 4, Phoenix 2. Pittsburgh 2, Buffalo 1 (SO).
The morals of the story:
The game: Like life, sometimes the simplest thing is the most important thing. I want to know what the job description for this one looks like. Here's my take: Wanted: large, physically and mentally sturdy individual to declare goals scored in major NHL match-ups, including playoffs. Individual must be willing to tolerate verbal and possibly physical abuse and have absolutely no hobbies, personal conflicts, substance abuse issues or anything else that would lead to distraction during games and therefore interfere in their ability to keep their eye on the puck and declare a puck has gone into the net. Individual must have previous experience in jobs that require sitting still, watching a small piece of rubber and pushing large buttons. Individual must not show favoritism to their favorite team in making their decisions.
Life: If life had a goal judge, it would be good and bad. On the one hand, there would be no BS when you score a life goal (marriage, promotion, graduation,etc.) and you'd get the point, plain and simple. Goal in. Red light. Done. But it's never that easy. For example, what if the goal was making money and the winner cheated their way to it, like Wall Street bankers did for decades? What if it's scored by one of those people who think they're entitled to the world because life has never taught them any different? The goal judge only decides whether the puck went in, not how or why. For that, I'm afraid we'd need another job: circumstance judge. This individual would decide whether a goal was scored fairly by a morally upstanding person and if not, the goal would be disallowed. Their decision would be final and subject to dispute only if the individual can provide character references and clear a background check.
Next up: Section 5, Officials. Rule 38, Real Time Scorers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
