The game: Pittsburgh vs. Detroit.
Why I chose it: What goes best with brunch? Hockey, of course. Plus, it's a Stanley Cup final rematch.
Long time coming: Back here in Portland, for the first time in I don't even remember how long, the Portland Winterhawks sold out last night's game. 10,907 fans were in the house. How could we not beat Seattle 6 - 2?
Favorite plays: Evgeni Malkin scoring the game-winning goal in the shootout with the greatest of ease. On the home front, Ryan Johansen scoring at the very tail end of the first period to put the Hawks up by one. Luke Walker sealing the deal with the game winner. Ooohh, and Luca Sbisa scoring his first goal as a Winterhawks, and on his birthday to boot.
The rule: Section 9, Other Fouls. Rule 75, Unsportsmanlike Conduct.
Definition: 75.1, Unsportsmanlike Conduct. Players and non-playing Club personnel are responsible for their conduct at all times and must endeavor to prevent disorderly conduct before, during or after the game, on or off the ice and any place in the rink. The Referees may assess penalties to any of the above team personnel for failure to do so. NOTE: When such conduct is directed at an official, Rule 40 - Abuse of Officials shall be applied.
My favorite higlights: 75.2, Minor Penalty. Minor penalties for unsportsmanlike conduct are assessed for the following:
-- Any identifiable player who uses obscene, profane or abusive language or gestures directed at any person. So, what if the player isn't identifiable? Can he carry on unabated with hurling unpleasantries at an unruly fan?
-- Hair pulling, biting, grabbing hold of a face mask, throwing an object onto the ice, and being the instigator of a fight while wearing a face shield. If injury results, a match penalty is assessed. Oh, and my personal favorite: a player who deliberately removes his jersey prior to participating in an altercation or who is clearly wearing a jersey that has been modified and does not conform to Rule 9 - Uniforms, shall be assessed a minor penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct and a game misconduct. If the altercation never materializes, the player would receive a minor penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct and a ten-minute misconduct for deliberately removing his jersey.
Final scores: Pittsburgh 2, Detroit 1 (SO). Portland Winterhawks 6, Seattle Thunderbirds 2.
The morals of the story:
The game: Obscene or profane language dominates the infractions for which a penalty can be assessed. I think the only question here is how much obscene or profane language doesn't get penalized. Because if it all was, there would be a stoppage of play every tenth of a second.
As for the jersey removing...just to refresh, a game misconduct is a more severe penalty than a minor. Which means you get a bigger penalty just for threatening the unsportsmanlike behavior than you would if it materialized. I understand why this rule exists - the NHL at least needs to send a message that unsportsmanlike conduct is not ok. But let's face it, there are three things that will go down in every hockey game, without question: swearing, spitting and macho posturing before a fight. They're guys...it's all about the threat, not actually throwing the punch.
Interesting omission: Nowhere in here does it penalize players for "dropping the mitts" in anticipation of a fight.
Life: Sadly, unsportsmanlike conduct is a part of life and thanks to modern technology it's everywhere. Texting, Twitter, cell phones, Bluetooths, iPhones, etc. have all made what was previously unacceptable and rude thoroughly acceptable. People think nothing of interrupting a live conversation to "take a call" to show how important they think they are. And if you are walking around with a Bluetooth in your ear, lest you should miss an important call, because as we all know, the world revolves around you...give it up. Even the President doesn't wear one of those things. If I was the NHL Commissioner of life, these would be just a few of my penalties for unsportsmanlike conduct:
-- Offense: Swearing, spitting or scratching private body parts in public. Penalty: Automatic banishment to a deserted island with a sharpened spear, a month's worth of clean underwear and a recipe for cooking fish on a open fire. Permanent orders to all boats traveling in the area to not rescue you if they see your smoke signals.
-- Offense: Wearing a Bluetooth for more than an hour and/or using it to pretend you are talking to someone on the other end, so your poor little ego can be fed it's daily self-affirmation snack. Penalty: Being placed on a permanent technology blacklist, so when you attempt to purchase said equipment or other useless technology, you will instead be handed a pamphlet with instructions on how to achieve self-enlightenment without the help of imaginary friends.
Next up on 2/1: Section 10, Game Flow. Rule 76, Face-offs.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Day 74, Rule 74
The game: Anaheim vs. Tampa Bay (1/29).
Why I chose it: Honkin' tall French captain faces off against cutie pie Swiss goalie. No other reason required.
The dilemma: I don't know which team to root for. If it goes to shootout, I'm going with Anaheim because it's all about the goaltender.
Oh look, funny how things work out: The final score: Anaheim 2, Tampa Bay 1 in a shootout.
And it keeps getting better: The Ducks just signed Jonas Hiller to a four-year contract extension. So I have signed myself to a four-year Anaheim Ducks fan extension.
And, on the local front: According to their team's blog, tonight's Portland Winterhawks' game against Seattle is very nearly sold-out. It's been a long time since they were even near that milestone. The Rose Garden is where it's at my friends. And it's Mascot night, so the kids will be able to hobnob with adults dressed as large fuzzy animals.
Now, the rule: Section 9, Other Fouls. Rule 74, Too Many Men on the Ice.
Definition: 74.1, Too Many Men on the Ice. Players may be changed at any time during the play from the players' bench provided that the player or players leaving the ice shall be within five feet (5') of his players' bench and out of the play before the change is made. Refer also to Rule 71 - Premature Substitution. at the descretion of the on-ice officials, should a substituting player come onto the ice before his teammate is within the five foot (5') limit of the players' bench (and therefore clearly causing his team to have too many players on the ice), then a bench minor penalty may be assessed.
The finer points (highlights): If in the course of making a substitution, either the player entering the game or the player retiring from the ice surface plays the puck with his stick, skats or hands or who checks or makes any physical contact with an opposing player while either the player entering the game or the retiring player is actually on the ice, then the infraction of "too many men on the ice" will be called. If in the course of a substitution either the player(s) entering the play or the player(s) retiring is struck by the puck accidentally, the play will not be stopped and no penalty will be called. In case you're wondering: A player coming onto the ice as a substitute player is considered on the ice once both of his skates are on the ice.
The morals of the story:
The game: Well, at least I see why this rule is just named for what it is. Because the technical name of this offense, Deliberate Illegal Substitution, sounds like something you do to cheat on your taxes. Also, what if you're 5'1" from the bench when your substitute comes out? Are you toast? Inquiring minds want to know.
Life: I used to work on Wall Street at a public relations agency. Yes, it was evil. No I didn't do it for long. Here's why I did it: It paid me enough money to finally afford rent and Rangers season tickets. Now, as for this rule: in PR you spend a lot of time at these huge conferences in hotels, where you stand around the press room and try to convince reporters to write about whatever you're hawking. Doesn't matter, because most of the time they aren't interested. But like this rule, there's a "hand off" where an agency tries to switch up the account execs in the hopes the reporters won't realize it and maybe buy the same crap from a different salesperson. And like this rule, it doesn't work. It's a good thing there is no bench minor for this in life, but maybe there should be.
Think about it this way: I spent about a year and a half on Wall Street and I went to some pretty cool places (Barcelona, Berlin, Montreal), but not once did any of us ever convince a reporter to write a single story. There's a reason this rule penalizes teams who do it deliberately -- it's a lame attempt to gain an unfair advantage. Want to score the story, the goal, whatever? Do it the right way. True, fans don't really want to watch a fair hockey game. Nor do we want to watch one where every victory is won by deception. Watching a player win the right way, in the prime of his career, trumps cheating any day.
Next up on 1/31: Section 9, Other Fouls. Rule 75, Unsportsmanlike Conduct.
Why I chose it: Honkin' tall French captain faces off against cutie pie Swiss goalie. No other reason required.
The dilemma: I don't know which team to root for. If it goes to shootout, I'm going with Anaheim because it's all about the goaltender.
Oh look, funny how things work out: The final score: Anaheim 2, Tampa Bay 1 in a shootout.
And it keeps getting better: The Ducks just signed Jonas Hiller to a four-year contract extension. So I have signed myself to a four-year Anaheim Ducks fan extension.
And, on the local front: According to their team's blog, tonight's Portland Winterhawks' game against Seattle is very nearly sold-out. It's been a long time since they were even near that milestone. The Rose Garden is where it's at my friends. And it's Mascot night, so the kids will be able to hobnob with adults dressed as large fuzzy animals.
Now, the rule: Section 9, Other Fouls. Rule 74, Too Many Men on the Ice.
Definition: 74.1, Too Many Men on the Ice. Players may be changed at any time during the play from the players' bench provided that the player or players leaving the ice shall be within five feet (5') of his players' bench and out of the play before the change is made. Refer also to Rule 71 - Premature Substitution. at the descretion of the on-ice officials, should a substituting player come onto the ice before his teammate is within the five foot (5') limit of the players' bench (and therefore clearly causing his team to have too many players on the ice), then a bench minor penalty may be assessed.
The finer points (highlights): If in the course of making a substitution, either the player entering the game or the player retiring from the ice surface plays the puck with his stick, skats or hands or who checks or makes any physical contact with an opposing player while either the player entering the game or the retiring player is actually on the ice, then the infraction of "too many men on the ice" will be called. If in the course of a substitution either the player(s) entering the play or the player(s) retiring is struck by the puck accidentally, the play will not be stopped and no penalty will be called. In case you're wondering: A player coming onto the ice as a substitute player is considered on the ice once both of his skates are on the ice.
The morals of the story:
The game: Well, at least I see why this rule is just named for what it is. Because the technical name of this offense, Deliberate Illegal Substitution, sounds like something you do to cheat on your taxes. Also, what if you're 5'1" from the bench when your substitute comes out? Are you toast? Inquiring minds want to know.
Life: I used to work on Wall Street at a public relations agency. Yes, it was evil. No I didn't do it for long. Here's why I did it: It paid me enough money to finally afford rent and Rangers season tickets. Now, as for this rule: in PR you spend a lot of time at these huge conferences in hotels, where you stand around the press room and try to convince reporters to write about whatever you're hawking. Doesn't matter, because most of the time they aren't interested. But like this rule, there's a "hand off" where an agency tries to switch up the account execs in the hopes the reporters won't realize it and maybe buy the same crap from a different salesperson. And like this rule, it doesn't work. It's a good thing there is no bench minor for this in life, but maybe there should be.
Think about it this way: I spent about a year and a half on Wall Street and I went to some pretty cool places (Barcelona, Berlin, Montreal), but not once did any of us ever convince a reporter to write a single story. There's a reason this rule penalizes teams who do it deliberately -- it's a lame attempt to gain an unfair advantage. Want to score the story, the goal, whatever? Do it the right way. True, fans don't really want to watch a fair hockey game. Nor do we want to watch one where every victory is won by deception. Watching a player win the right way, in the prime of his career, trumps cheating any day.
Next up on 1/31: Section 9, Other Fouls. Rule 75, Unsportsmanlike Conduct.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Day 73, Rule 73
The game: Ottawa vs. Pittsburgh. Chicago vs. San Jose.
The quirk: It was the Pens vs. the Sens. And the Hawks vs. the Sharks. Sounds like a Broadway musical.
The rule: Section 9, Other Fouls. Rule 73, Refusing to Start Play.
Number of sections in the rule: 3.
Definition: 73.1, Refusing to Start Play. This rule applies to teams who refuse to play while both teams are on the ice or who withdraws from the ice and refuses to play or who refuses to come onto the ice at the start of the game or at the beginning of the period of any game, when ordered to do so by the Referee.
My favorite highlights: 73.2, Procedure - Team on Ice. If, when both teams are on the ice, one team for any reason shall refuse to play when ordered to do so by the Referee, he shall warn the Captain and allow the team so refusing fifteen (15) seconds within which to begin the play or resume play. If at the end of that time, the team shall still refuse to play, the Referee shall impose a bench minor penalty for delay of game on a player of the offending team to be designated by the Coach of that team through the playing Captain. Hold it - so, these guys are refusing to play, but they're going to momentarily stop pouting and get organized enough to designate a player and tell their Captain in an orderly fashion? Sure. If you say so. And if the refusal continues, the Coach is also fined and removed from the bench and assessed a game misconduct. In case all that doesn't work: should the offending team still refuse to play, the Referee shall have no alternative but to declare that the game be forfeited to the non-offending Club and the case shall be reported Commissioner for further action (see Rule 66 - Forfeit of Game).
The final scores: Sens 4, Pens 1. Face-off for the Hawks vs. Sharks is in 10 minutes.
Morals of the story:
The game: This is the grown up, NHL version of children pouting until they get their way. It comes complete with a "I'm going to count to 10 and then you're going to be in trouble" rule. Why any team would do this and continue to do it when the final penalties are fines to the Coach and Manager and forfeit of a game to the non-offending team, I don't know. If hockey experts are reading this, do enlighten me.
Life: Oh please. NHL pros have no idea how lucky they are. If you did this in life and refused to come into work and got warned and still didn't do it, you'd be on the unemployment line. Your whole career would be forfeited to pretty much anyone who doesn't whine or have an overly inflated sense of personal importance.
Next up: It will be the official start of my personal stretch run. As of January 29, it will be 14 days until the Olympics and there are 13 rules to go. The next rule on deck for 1/30 is Rule 74, Too Many Men on the Ice.
The quirk: It was the Pens vs. the Sens. And the Hawks vs. the Sharks. Sounds like a Broadway musical.
The rule: Section 9, Other Fouls. Rule 73, Refusing to Start Play.
Number of sections in the rule: 3.
Definition: 73.1, Refusing to Start Play. This rule applies to teams who refuse to play while both teams are on the ice or who withdraws from the ice and refuses to play or who refuses to come onto the ice at the start of the game or at the beginning of the period of any game, when ordered to do so by the Referee.
My favorite highlights: 73.2, Procedure - Team on Ice. If, when both teams are on the ice, one team for any reason shall refuse to play when ordered to do so by the Referee, he shall warn the Captain and allow the team so refusing fifteen (15) seconds within which to begin the play or resume play. If at the end of that time, the team shall still refuse to play, the Referee shall impose a bench minor penalty for delay of game on a player of the offending team to be designated by the Coach of that team through the playing Captain. Hold it - so, these guys are refusing to play, but they're going to momentarily stop pouting and get organized enough to designate a player and tell their Captain in an orderly fashion? Sure. If you say so. And if the refusal continues, the Coach is also fined and removed from the bench and assessed a game misconduct. In case all that doesn't work: should the offending team still refuse to play, the Referee shall have no alternative but to declare that the game be forfeited to the non-offending Club and the case shall be reported Commissioner for further action (see Rule 66 - Forfeit of Game).
The final scores: Sens 4, Pens 1. Face-off for the Hawks vs. Sharks is in 10 minutes.
Morals of the story:
The game: This is the grown up, NHL version of children pouting until they get their way. It comes complete with a "I'm going to count to 10 and then you're going to be in trouble" rule. Why any team would do this and continue to do it when the final penalties are fines to the Coach and Manager and forfeit of a game to the non-offending team, I don't know. If hockey experts are reading this, do enlighten me.
Life: Oh please. NHL pros have no idea how lucky they are. If you did this in life and refused to come into work and got warned and still didn't do it, you'd be on the unemployment line. Your whole career would be forfeited to pretty much anyone who doesn't whine or have an overly inflated sense of personal importance.
Next up: It will be the official start of my personal stretch run. As of January 29, it will be 14 days until the Olympics and there are 13 rules to go. The next rule on deck for 1/30 is Rule 74, Too Many Men on the Ice.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Day 71, Rules 71 and 72
The game: I came home and started watching the Anaheim vs. Washington game, but I caught it right as the Capitals were scoring 4 goals in like, 11 seconds. Plus, they were giving my favorite goalie the night off. So I'm waiting for a replay of Montreal vs. Tampa Bay.
Why I chose it: Honkin' tall French-speaking captain and more honkin' tall French speaking players on the same ice. I'm in.
But we don't need to leave Portland to watch an Anaheim Duck in action: the Ducks sent Luca Sbisa back to Lethbridge to finish out the season with his junior team. He got traded to the Portland Winterhawks and he arrived in the Rose City yesterday, sans hockey gear. Word is that he may hit the ice for the Winterhawks this weekend. If you live in Portland, may I suggest you join us: Saturday night, 7 pm, Rose Garden.
The rules: Section 9, Other Fouls. Rule 71, Premature Substitution. Rule 72, Refusing to Play the Puck.
Number of sections in the rules: 2 (Rule 71). 5 (Rule 72).
Definitions:
71.1, Premature Substitution. When a goalkeeper leaves his goal area and proceeds to his players' bench for the purpose of substituting another player, the skater cannot enter the playing surface before the goalkeeper is within five feet (5') of the bench. If the substitution is made prematurely, the official shall stop play immediately unless the non-offending team has possession of the puck -- in which event the stoppage will be delayed until the puck changes possession.
72.1, Refusing or Abstaining from Playing the Puck. The purpose of this section is to enforce continuous action and both Referees and Linesmen should interpret and apply the rule to produce this result. So, this rule encourages the officials to "produce a result" eh? Sounds a little suspicious to me.
My favorite highlights: Second half of 71.1. There shall be no time penalty to the team making the premature substitution, but the resulting face-off will take place at the center ice face-off spot when play is stopped beyond the center red line. When player is stopped prior to the center red line, the resulting face-off shall be conducted at the nearest face-off spot in the zone where the play was stopped.
72.2, Hand Pass. When a hand pass has been initiated by one player to a teammate and the teammate elects not to play the puck to avoid the stoppage of play, and the opposing team also abstains from playing the puck (perhaps to allow time to expire on a penalty), the Referee shall stop the play and order the resulting face-off at the nearest face-off location to where the play was stopped for this violation. The rule is nearly identical when a player does the same thing with a high stick.
The final score: Tampa Bay Lightning 3, Montreal Canadiens 0. I believe the French translation is jeu blanc or blanchissage.
Morals of the story:
The game: I think the verbiage says it all: "perhaps to allow time to expire on a penalty." It sounds like cops trying to untangle a murder mystery on "Law and Order." This tells me the officials know what players are up to and they aren't going to take any excuses. On the other hand, both teams have to be guilty of the same crime at the same time and what are the chances of that happening?
Life: Premature substitution is like the unspoken law that you really shouldn't go through the yellow light if you're within a certain distance and can stop reasonably. One split second and you're guilty of running a light. Or better, if you're cheating on the significant other, it would mean you need to dump the mistress/lover before you are within 100 yards of your home and could be seen by the wife/husband/partner. Hey, here's a novel idea: Don't speed up at the yellow light to try and make it and don't cheat on the other person. Some rules are meant to be broken; this isn't one of them. Refusing to play the puck...it's everywhere in life. Here are just a few examples you may have seen recently:
Corporate America - when two executives both refuse to take accountability for a bad judgment call that cost the company millions, and they get away with it because they are both just smart enough not to have put it in an email, a memo a Facebook page, or a Twitter feed.
Drivers who sit at a green light, finally go just at the tail end, thus leaving space between both the drivers ahead who already went through and everyone they left behind at the light.
People who are worried the person behind them in Starbucks will get the last doughnut in the little glass case, so they delay by pretending to be unsure about what they want in the grande, non-fat, no whip, sugar-free Hazelnut decaf latte they order every morning, but "while I'm deciding on that, I do know I want that chocolate doughnut."
My penalty: Permanent banishment to a one-gas-station town in Nevada or Arizona (whichever is running out of water faster), where you will get to do nothing but eat chocolate doughnuts every day, three times a day, drive to work through 7 stoplights that only let one car through and that's the one in front of you, and no chance of promotion to a job beyond "specialist," thus ensuring that you will be the only person harmed by your stupidity and overall lack of good judgment and moral fortitude.
Next up on 1/28: Section 9, Other Fouls. Rule 73, Refusing to Start Play.
Why I chose it: Honkin' tall French-speaking captain and more honkin' tall French speaking players on the same ice. I'm in.
But we don't need to leave Portland to watch an Anaheim Duck in action: the Ducks sent Luca Sbisa back to Lethbridge to finish out the season with his junior team. He got traded to the Portland Winterhawks and he arrived in the Rose City yesterday, sans hockey gear. Word is that he may hit the ice for the Winterhawks this weekend. If you live in Portland, may I suggest you join us: Saturday night, 7 pm, Rose Garden.
The rules: Section 9, Other Fouls. Rule 71, Premature Substitution. Rule 72, Refusing to Play the Puck.
Number of sections in the rules: 2 (Rule 71). 5 (Rule 72).
Definitions:
71.1, Premature Substitution. When a goalkeeper leaves his goal area and proceeds to his players' bench for the purpose of substituting another player, the skater cannot enter the playing surface before the goalkeeper is within five feet (5') of the bench. If the substitution is made prematurely, the official shall stop play immediately unless the non-offending team has possession of the puck -- in which event the stoppage will be delayed until the puck changes possession.
72.1, Refusing or Abstaining from Playing the Puck. The purpose of this section is to enforce continuous action and both Referees and Linesmen should interpret and apply the rule to produce this result. So, this rule encourages the officials to "produce a result" eh? Sounds a little suspicious to me.
My favorite highlights: Second half of 71.1. There shall be no time penalty to the team making the premature substitution, but the resulting face-off will take place at the center ice face-off spot when play is stopped beyond the center red line. When player is stopped prior to the center red line, the resulting face-off shall be conducted at the nearest face-off spot in the zone where the play was stopped.
72.2, Hand Pass. When a hand pass has been initiated by one player to a teammate and the teammate elects not to play the puck to avoid the stoppage of play, and the opposing team also abstains from playing the puck (perhaps to allow time to expire on a penalty), the Referee shall stop the play and order the resulting face-off at the nearest face-off location to where the play was stopped for this violation. The rule is nearly identical when a player does the same thing with a high stick.
The final score: Tampa Bay Lightning 3, Montreal Canadiens 0. I believe the French translation is jeu blanc or blanchissage.
Morals of the story:
The game: I think the verbiage says it all: "perhaps to allow time to expire on a penalty." It sounds like cops trying to untangle a murder mystery on "Law and Order." This tells me the officials know what players are up to and they aren't going to take any excuses. On the other hand, both teams have to be guilty of the same crime at the same time and what are the chances of that happening?
Life: Premature substitution is like the unspoken law that you really shouldn't go through the yellow light if you're within a certain distance and can stop reasonably. One split second and you're guilty of running a light. Or better, if you're cheating on the significant other, it would mean you need to dump the mistress/lover before you are within 100 yards of your home and could be seen by the wife/husband/partner. Hey, here's a novel idea: Don't speed up at the yellow light to try and make it and don't cheat on the other person. Some rules are meant to be broken; this isn't one of them. Refusing to play the puck...it's everywhere in life. Here are just a few examples you may have seen recently:
Corporate America - when two executives both refuse to take accountability for a bad judgment call that cost the company millions, and they get away with it because they are both just smart enough not to have put it in an email, a memo a Facebook page, or a Twitter feed.
Drivers who sit at a green light, finally go just at the tail end, thus leaving space between both the drivers ahead who already went through and everyone they left behind at the light.
People who are worried the person behind them in Starbucks will get the last doughnut in the little glass case, so they delay by pretending to be unsure about what they want in the grande, non-fat, no whip, sugar-free Hazelnut decaf latte they order every morning, but "while I'm deciding on that, I do know I want that chocolate doughnut."
My penalty: Permanent banishment to a one-gas-station town in Nevada or Arizona (whichever is running out of water faster), where you will get to do nothing but eat chocolate doughnuts every day, three times a day, drive to work through 7 stoplights that only let one car through and that's the one in front of you, and no chance of promotion to a job beyond "specialist," thus ensuring that you will be the only person harmed by your stupidity and overall lack of good judgment and moral fortitude.
Next up on 1/28: Section 9, Other Fouls. Rule 73, Refusing to Start Play.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Day 70, Rule 70
The game: Anaheim vs. Atlanta.
Why I chose it: It's my birthday and I'll ogle cute Swiss goalies if I want to. Even if they're on the losing team.
So, I met the future of the NHL and: They are very tall, they are very smart and they are very cool. If you live in Portland, Oregon, are free from 7 -9 pm on Monday, Feb. 8 or March 8, stop by Stark Street Pizza. It's a super cool, super casual way to meet hockey's future before it starts dating underwear models and driving Ferraris.
The rule: Section 9, Other Fouls. Rule 70, Leaving the Bench.
Number of sections in the rule: 10.
Definition: 70.1, Leaving the Bench. No player may leave the players' or penalty bench at any time during an altercation or for the purpose of starting an altercation. And if you do:
My favorite highlights:
70.2, Legal Line Change. If a player enters the game while play is in progress from his own players' bench or legally from the penalty bench, who starts an altercation is subject to supplementary discipline. Player or players who enter the game on a legal line change change during a stoppage of play who line up in preparation for the ensuing face-off who participate in an altercation will be subject to supplementary discipline. And if you're already on the penalty bench for starting some different crap:
70.4, Leaving the Penalty Bench. A penalized player who leaves the penalty bench before his penalty has expired, whether play is in progress or not, shall incur an additional minor penalty after serving his unexpired penalty. Any player who, having entered the penalty bench, leaves the penalty bench prior to the expiration of his penalty for the purpose of challenging an official's ruling, shall be assessed a game misconduct penalty. He shall also be automatically suspended for the next three (3) regular League and/or playoff games of his Club.
Calling all math majors: 70.10, Fines and Suspensions. For all suspensions imposed on players under this rule, the Club of the player or goalkeeper shall play to the League a sum equal to the pro-rata of that player's salary covered by the suspension. For purposes of computing amounts due for a player's suspension, the player's fixed salary shall be divided by the number of days in the regular season and then, said result shall be multiplied by the number of games suspended. And if the team tries to get around this by reimbursing the player on their own the team is fined $100,000.
The final score: Atlanta 2, Anaheim 1.
Morals of the story:
The game: Don't leave the bench to start a fight, don't follow the guy who leaves the bench to start a fight, don't try to leave legally and then start a fight. In fact, to ensure your safety and that of others, don't even think about leaving the bench to start a fight or even look at another player like you're going to get up and start some business. Fines are too severe, penalties are too lengthy and it's not like you can pass it off as a mistake during a line change. What would be your excuse. "Sorry, Mr. Official, I was just changing up with my teammate here, and I noticed that the opposing player had a little fluffy thing on his jersey and I just went to pick it off and he starting something with me. Must have thought I was starting a fight..."
Life: There are times to sit quietly on the bench and times when it's ok to leave and start some business. It's simple: know the difference and always follow your instincts. For example, if you are sitting in cubeville wondering how and when you sold your dream to the highest bidder who promised a better, more secure life than the one where you subsist on instant coffee and baked beans while you write the next big novel that everyone will read in about 100 years after you've long since died from caffeine poisoning and malnutrition, even though every minute would still be happier than the office-bound prison you live in now...that would be a good time to bust out and make a bigger noise.
Next up on 1/27: Section 9, Other Fouls. Rule 71, Premature Substitution. Rule 72, Refusing to Play the Puck.
Why I chose it: It's my birthday and I'll ogle cute Swiss goalies if I want to. Even if they're on the losing team.
So, I met the future of the NHL and: They are very tall, they are very smart and they are very cool. If you live in Portland, Oregon, are free from 7 -9 pm on Monday, Feb. 8 or March 8, stop by Stark Street Pizza. It's a super cool, super casual way to meet hockey's future before it starts dating underwear models and driving Ferraris.
The rule: Section 9, Other Fouls. Rule 70, Leaving the Bench.
Number of sections in the rule: 10.
Definition: 70.1, Leaving the Bench. No player may leave the players' or penalty bench at any time during an altercation or for the purpose of starting an altercation. And if you do:
My favorite highlights:
70.2, Legal Line Change. If a player enters the game while play is in progress from his own players' bench or legally from the penalty bench, who starts an altercation is subject to supplementary discipline. Player or players who enter the game on a legal line change change during a stoppage of play who line up in preparation for the ensuing face-off who participate in an altercation will be subject to supplementary discipline. And if you're already on the penalty bench for starting some different crap:
70.4, Leaving the Penalty Bench. A penalized player who leaves the penalty bench before his penalty has expired, whether play is in progress or not, shall incur an additional minor penalty after serving his unexpired penalty. Any player who, having entered the penalty bench, leaves the penalty bench prior to the expiration of his penalty for the purpose of challenging an official's ruling, shall be assessed a game misconduct penalty. He shall also be automatically suspended for the next three (3) regular League and/or playoff games of his Club.
Calling all math majors: 70.10, Fines and Suspensions. For all suspensions imposed on players under this rule, the Club of the player or goalkeeper shall play to the League a sum equal to the pro-rata of that player's salary covered by the suspension. For purposes of computing amounts due for a player's suspension, the player's fixed salary shall be divided by the number of days in the regular season and then, said result shall be multiplied by the number of games suspended. And if the team tries to get around this by reimbursing the player on their own the team is fined $100,000.
The final score: Atlanta 2, Anaheim 1.
Morals of the story:
The game: Don't leave the bench to start a fight, don't follow the guy who leaves the bench to start a fight, don't try to leave legally and then start a fight. In fact, to ensure your safety and that of others, don't even think about leaving the bench to start a fight or even look at another player like you're going to get up and start some business. Fines are too severe, penalties are too lengthy and it's not like you can pass it off as a mistake during a line change. What would be your excuse. "Sorry, Mr. Official, I was just changing up with my teammate here, and I noticed that the opposing player had a little fluffy thing on his jersey and I just went to pick it off and he starting something with me. Must have thought I was starting a fight..."
Life: There are times to sit quietly on the bench and times when it's ok to leave and start some business. It's simple: know the difference and always follow your instincts. For example, if you are sitting in cubeville wondering how and when you sold your dream to the highest bidder who promised a better, more secure life than the one where you subsist on instant coffee and baked beans while you write the next big novel that everyone will read in about 100 years after you've long since died from caffeine poisoning and malnutrition, even though every minute would still be happier than the office-bound prison you live in now...that would be a good time to bust out and make a bigger noise.
Next up on 1/27: Section 9, Other Fouls. Rule 71, Premature Substitution. Rule 72, Refusing to Play the Puck.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Day 68, Rules 68 and 69
The games: Pittsburgh vs. Philadelphia. Portland Winterhawks vs. Vancouver Giants.
Why I chose them: I've committed myself to an all-hockey, all-the-time, four-day weekend. I have to either be there, be watching it or be listening to it. Or, in the case of tomorrow night's Booster Club Stark Street Pizza Night with the players, meeting it.
The rules: Section 9, Other Fouls. Rule 68, Illegal Substitution. Rule 69, Interference on the Goaltender.
Number of sections in the rules: 6 (Rule 68). 7 (Rule 69).
Definitions:
68.1, Illegal Subsitution. An illegal substitution shall be deemed to have occurred when a player enters the game illegally from either the players' bench (teammate not within the five (5) foot limit - refer to Rule 74, Too Many Men on the Ice), from the penalty bench (penalty has not yet expired), when a major penalty is being served and the replacement player does not return to the ice from the penalty bench (see 68.2), or when a player illegally enters the game for the sole purpose of preventing an opposing player from scoring on a breakaway (68.3 and 68.4). If you do enter and try to stop a breakaway, the player you tried to stop is awarded a penalty shot. Players who receive a major and misconduct or game misconduct at the same time or if a penalized player gets injured and can't play, no player but their substitute may enter the game and he must do so from the penalty bench.
69.1, Interference on the Goalkeeper. This rule is based on the premise that an attacking player's position, whether inside or outside the crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed. In other words, goals scored while attacking players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances be allowed. It goes on to say that the overriding rationale of this rule is that a goalkeeper should have the ability to move freely within his goal crease without being hindered by the actions of an attacking player. If an attacking player enters the crease and, by his actions, impairs the goalkeeper's ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal is disallowed.
My favorite highlights: Like all rules that apply to the goaltender, the interference rule is long and complicated. The most detailed part of this rule defines the reasons for which goals are disallowed, which include the following:
-- an attacking player by positioning or contact, interferes with the goalie's ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal.
-- an attacking player makes intentional or deliberate contact with the goalkeeper inside or outside the crease. If the contact is incidental and occurs ouside the crease and the player made every effort to avoid contact, the goal is allowed.
-- if a goalkeeper, while in the act of establishing position within his goal crease, makes contact with an attacking player and this results in an impairment of the goalkeeper's ability to defend his goal.
-- if, after any contact by a goalkeeper who is attempting to establish position in his goal crease, the attacking player does not immediately give ground to the goalkeeper.
-- if an attacking player establishes a significant position within the crease so as the obstruct the goalkeeper's vision, and impair his ability to defend his goal. Significant position is when a player is within the goal crease for more than an instantaneous period of time.
The rule in action: The officials are just waved off a Vancouver Giants' goal for goaltender interference. No penalty was imposed.
The final scores: Pittsburgh 2, Philadelphia 1. Portland 3, Vancouver 1. It was the Winterhawks' first win against Vancouver in three years, ending a 13-game losing streak against the Giants.
Morals of the story:
The game: Don't screw with the goaltender, accidentally or otherwise. And if you are the goaltender, stay where you are, dude. As for the illegal substitution, do the math. How does a team get away with that one? There are four guys on the ice, a goal judge, a video goal judge, a penalty timekeeper and a real-time scorer watching, not to mention the network or Comcast broadcasters who can provide video footage. You can try it, but beware of the NHL version of big brother watching you.
Life: Why don't we have the goalkeeper interference rule in life? If we are defending our homes, working hard to keep our jobs, driving safely so as to protect ourselves and others, we should be able to do so unhindered. Here are a few things for which I would impose an "Interference on the Goalkeeper" penalty:
-- Offense: Establishing position in the neighbor's yard by letting your dog go poo and then not picking up after him, blockading his driveway by parking in front of it or by getting drunk at his Christmas party and passing out in the guest bathroom. Penalty: No future invites to the holiday party; removal of your vehicle by a tow truck, which will then double park it next to the cop car that belongs to a different neighbor, leaving you to explain yourself to said authority; and retaliation at the neighbor's discretion in the form of his dog peeing on your prize-winning tomato plants, taking a weed whacker to your rose bush or other punishment of the neighbor's choosing.
-- Offense: Interfering with a work colleague's ability to do their job and complete a project by "stopping the presses" on a nearly-completed project at the 11th hour just because you can. Penalty: Everyday you come into work, for the first three hours (at a minimum), everyone else will be permitted to enter your office every 30 seconds unannounced with a project that must be completed ASAP, guaranteeing you'll never get it done, you'll get reprimanded by higher ups for "not delivering on promises for deliverable timelines" and you will be put on probation while said colleague finishes previous project and gets promoted to that office you've been coveting because it has a view of the hot 25-year-old tenant in the building across the street.
Next up on 1/25: Section 9, Other Fouls. Rule 70, Leaving the Bench.
Why I chose them: I've committed myself to an all-hockey, all-the-time, four-day weekend. I have to either be there, be watching it or be listening to it. Or, in the case of tomorrow night's Booster Club Stark Street Pizza Night with the players, meeting it.
The rules: Section 9, Other Fouls. Rule 68, Illegal Substitution. Rule 69, Interference on the Goaltender.
Number of sections in the rules: 6 (Rule 68). 7 (Rule 69).
Definitions:
68.1, Illegal Subsitution. An illegal substitution shall be deemed to have occurred when a player enters the game illegally from either the players' bench (teammate not within the five (5) foot limit - refer to Rule 74, Too Many Men on the Ice), from the penalty bench (penalty has not yet expired), when a major penalty is being served and the replacement player does not return to the ice from the penalty bench (see 68.2), or when a player illegally enters the game for the sole purpose of preventing an opposing player from scoring on a breakaway (68.3 and 68.4). If you do enter and try to stop a breakaway, the player you tried to stop is awarded a penalty shot. Players who receive a major and misconduct or game misconduct at the same time or if a penalized player gets injured and can't play, no player but their substitute may enter the game and he must do so from the penalty bench.
69.1, Interference on the Goalkeeper. This rule is based on the premise that an attacking player's position, whether inside or outside the crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed. In other words, goals scored while attacking players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances be allowed. It goes on to say that the overriding rationale of this rule is that a goalkeeper should have the ability to move freely within his goal crease without being hindered by the actions of an attacking player. If an attacking player enters the crease and, by his actions, impairs the goalkeeper's ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal is disallowed.
My favorite highlights: Like all rules that apply to the goaltender, the interference rule is long and complicated. The most detailed part of this rule defines the reasons for which goals are disallowed, which include the following:
-- an attacking player by positioning or contact, interferes with the goalie's ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal.
-- an attacking player makes intentional or deliberate contact with the goalkeeper inside or outside the crease. If the contact is incidental and occurs ouside the crease and the player made every effort to avoid contact, the goal is allowed.
-- if a goalkeeper, while in the act of establishing position within his goal crease, makes contact with an attacking player and this results in an impairment of the goalkeeper's ability to defend his goal.
-- if, after any contact by a goalkeeper who is attempting to establish position in his goal crease, the attacking player does not immediately give ground to the goalkeeper.
-- if an attacking player establishes a significant position within the crease so as the obstruct the goalkeeper's vision, and impair his ability to defend his goal. Significant position is when a player is within the goal crease for more than an instantaneous period of time.
The rule in action: The officials are just waved off a Vancouver Giants' goal for goaltender interference. No penalty was imposed.
The final scores: Pittsburgh 2, Philadelphia 1. Portland 3, Vancouver 1. It was the Winterhawks' first win against Vancouver in three years, ending a 13-game losing streak against the Giants.
Morals of the story:
The game: Don't screw with the goaltender, accidentally or otherwise. And if you are the goaltender, stay where you are, dude. As for the illegal substitution, do the math. How does a team get away with that one? There are four guys on the ice, a goal judge, a video goal judge, a penalty timekeeper and a real-time scorer watching, not to mention the network or Comcast broadcasters who can provide video footage. You can try it, but beware of the NHL version of big brother watching you.
Life: Why don't we have the goalkeeper interference rule in life? If we are defending our homes, working hard to keep our jobs, driving safely so as to protect ourselves and others, we should be able to do so unhindered. Here are a few things for which I would impose an "Interference on the Goalkeeper" penalty:
-- Offense: Establishing position in the neighbor's yard by letting your dog go poo and then not picking up after him, blockading his driveway by parking in front of it or by getting drunk at his Christmas party and passing out in the guest bathroom. Penalty: No future invites to the holiday party; removal of your vehicle by a tow truck, which will then double park it next to the cop car that belongs to a different neighbor, leaving you to explain yourself to said authority; and retaliation at the neighbor's discretion in the form of his dog peeing on your prize-winning tomato plants, taking a weed whacker to your rose bush or other punishment of the neighbor's choosing.
-- Offense: Interfering with a work colleague's ability to do their job and complete a project by "stopping the presses" on a nearly-completed project at the 11th hour just because you can. Penalty: Everyday you come into work, for the first three hours (at a minimum), everyone else will be permitted to enter your office every 30 seconds unannounced with a project that must be completed ASAP, guaranteeing you'll never get it done, you'll get reprimanded by higher ups for "not delivering on promises for deliverable timelines" and you will be put on probation while said colleague finishes previous project and gets promoted to that office you've been coveting because it has a view of the hot 25-year-old tenant in the building across the street.
Next up on 1/25: Section 9, Other Fouls. Rule 70, Leaving the Bench.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Day 66, Rules 66 and 67
The games: Anaheim vs. St. Louis, Chicago vs. Vancouver.
Why I chose them: Cutie pie Swiss goalie is starting for Anaheim, and since the Portland Winterhawks' own Brett Ponich was drafted by the Blues, I feel obliged to pay more attention these days. The other is a match-up between two Stanley Cup playoff teams: it's a no-brainer.
The rules: Section 9, Other Fouls. Rule 66, Forfeit of Game. Rule 67, Handling Puck.
Number of sections in the rules: 1 (Rule 66). 6 (Handling Puck).
Definitions:
66.1, Forfeit of Game. In the event of failure by a club to comply with a provision of the League constitution, by-laws, resolutions, rules or regulations affecting the playing of a game, the Referee shall, if so directed by the Commissioner or his designee, refuse to permit the game to proceed until the offending Club comes into compliance with such provision. Should the offending club persist in its refusal to come into compliance, the Referee shall, with the prior approval of the Commissioner or his designee, declare the game forfeited and the non-offending Club the winner. It goes on to state that if both teams persist in refusing to comply, the game is forfeited and the visiting team is declared the winner.
67.1, Handling Puck. A player shall be permitted to stop or "bat" a puck in the air with his open hand, or push it along the ice with his hand, and the play shall not be stopped unless, in the opinion of the on-ice officials, he has deliberately directed the puck to a teammate, or has allowed his team to gain an advantage, in any zone other than the defending zone, in which case the play shall be stopped and a face-off conducted (see Rule 79 - Hand Pass). Play will not be stopped for any hand pass by players in their own defending zone.
My favorite highlights:
Second half of 66.1. If the game is declared forfeited prior to its having commenced, the score shall be recorded as 1-0 and no player shall be credited with any personal statistics. If the game was in progress, the score is recorded as 0 for the loser and 1 or, if greater, the number of goals scored and players are credited with their personal statistics.
67.2, Minor Penalty - Player. A player shall be permitted to catch the puck out of the air but must immediately place it or knock it down to the ice. If he catches it and skates with it, either to avoid a check or to gain a territorial advantage over his opponent, a minor penalty shall be assessed for "closing his hand on the puck." A minor penalty shall be imposed who, while play is in progress, picks up the puck off the ice with his hand.
As always, the penalties for goaltenders are far more complicated. Take this snippet from 67.3, Minor Penalty - Goalkeeper. A goalkeeper who holds the puck with his hands for longer than three seconds shall be given a minor penalty unless he is actually being checked by an opponent. The object of this entire rule is to keep the puck in play continuously and any action taken by the goalkeeper which causes an unnecessary stoppage must be penalized without warning. A goalkeeper shall be assessed a minor penalty when he deliberately holds the puck in any manner which, in the opinion of the Referee, causes an unnecessary stoppage of play. A minor penalty can also be assessed to the goalkeeper for the following:
-- throwing the puck towards the opponent's net. Goal is allowed and there's no penalty if the non-offending team comes into possession of the puck and scores.
-- deliberately dropping the puck into his pads or onto the goal net.
-- deliberately piling up snow or obstacles near the net that would prevent the scoring of a goal.
Final scores: St. Louis 3, Anaheim 3 at the end of regulation (all three Ducks goals were scored in the last 15 minutes of the third period). It's going to a shootout.
Morals of the story:
The game: How stupid and arrogant do you have to be to cause a forfeit of game, especially if you're the home team? There's no advantage in terms of the score, you just cost all the other players their chance at racking up some stats and fans get royally pissed they'll miss a game for which they payed good money. File it under not cool, dude. Ditto for doing obvious crap like picking the puck up off the ice or stuff like piling up snow or dropping the puck into your pads. If you're gonna do it, at least play like a true hockey player...be unfair and try to hide it.
Life: Handling the puck is a good rule for life. Keep the game in motion and don't slow it down or screw it up with stupid stuff. It's easy to be tempted along the path of life by the equivalent of holding the puck, but in the end it only leads to a stoppage of play and a minor penalty. Here are just a few things for which we should be hit with a minor penalty if we handle the puck to gain an advantage:
-- Cheating "just a little" on your income taxes in order to keep the money for yourself to reinvest in Wall Street or go on a four-star vacation. Minor penalty: A year-long audit of every 1040, W-2 and whatever that you ever cheated on, in a small room with one flourescent bulb and an IRS agent with coffee breath, and a full repayment of said taxes, with 50 percent interest.
-- Pirating of your next door neighbor's cable, 'cause, hey he's got a Princeton degree and a cushy day job and he can afford to miss a few movies and sporting events now and again so I can take what life didn't give me. Minor penalty: Being blacklisted at Comcast so you'll never be able to get your own cable, even if you can afford it one day, and having a little chip put into your computer that would prevent you from watching free episodes of anything online (exception: bad network sitcoms with laugh tracks, which you can watch in abundance).
Next up on 1/24: Section 9, Other Fouls. Rule 68, Illegal Substitution. Rule 69, Interference on the Goalkeeper.
Why I chose them: Cutie pie Swiss goalie is starting for Anaheim, and since the Portland Winterhawks' own Brett Ponich was drafted by the Blues, I feel obliged to pay more attention these days. The other is a match-up between two Stanley Cup playoff teams: it's a no-brainer.
The rules: Section 9, Other Fouls. Rule 66, Forfeit of Game. Rule 67, Handling Puck.
Number of sections in the rules: 1 (Rule 66). 6 (Handling Puck).
Definitions:
66.1, Forfeit of Game. In the event of failure by a club to comply with a provision of the League constitution, by-laws, resolutions, rules or regulations affecting the playing of a game, the Referee shall, if so directed by the Commissioner or his designee, refuse to permit the game to proceed until the offending Club comes into compliance with such provision. Should the offending club persist in its refusal to come into compliance, the Referee shall, with the prior approval of the Commissioner or his designee, declare the game forfeited and the non-offending Club the winner. It goes on to state that if both teams persist in refusing to comply, the game is forfeited and the visiting team is declared the winner.
67.1, Handling Puck. A player shall be permitted to stop or "bat" a puck in the air with his open hand, or push it along the ice with his hand, and the play shall not be stopped unless, in the opinion of the on-ice officials, he has deliberately directed the puck to a teammate, or has allowed his team to gain an advantage, in any zone other than the defending zone, in which case the play shall be stopped and a face-off conducted (see Rule 79 - Hand Pass). Play will not be stopped for any hand pass by players in their own defending zone.
My favorite highlights:
Second half of 66.1. If the game is declared forfeited prior to its having commenced, the score shall be recorded as 1-0 and no player shall be credited with any personal statistics. If the game was in progress, the score is recorded as 0 for the loser and 1 or, if greater, the number of goals scored and players are credited with their personal statistics.
67.2, Minor Penalty - Player. A player shall be permitted to catch the puck out of the air but must immediately place it or knock it down to the ice. If he catches it and skates with it, either to avoid a check or to gain a territorial advantage over his opponent, a minor penalty shall be assessed for "closing his hand on the puck." A minor penalty shall be imposed who, while play is in progress, picks up the puck off the ice with his hand.
As always, the penalties for goaltenders are far more complicated. Take this snippet from 67.3, Minor Penalty - Goalkeeper. A goalkeeper who holds the puck with his hands for longer than three seconds shall be given a minor penalty unless he is actually being checked by an opponent. The object of this entire rule is to keep the puck in play continuously and any action taken by the goalkeeper which causes an unnecessary stoppage must be penalized without warning. A goalkeeper shall be assessed a minor penalty when he deliberately holds the puck in any manner which, in the opinion of the Referee, causes an unnecessary stoppage of play. A minor penalty can also be assessed to the goalkeeper for the following:
-- throwing the puck towards the opponent's net. Goal is allowed and there's no penalty if the non-offending team comes into possession of the puck and scores.
-- deliberately dropping the puck into his pads or onto the goal net.
-- deliberately piling up snow or obstacles near the net that would prevent the scoring of a goal.
Final scores: St. Louis 3, Anaheim 3 at the end of regulation (all three Ducks goals were scored in the last 15 minutes of the third period). It's going to a shootout.
Morals of the story:
The game: How stupid and arrogant do you have to be to cause a forfeit of game, especially if you're the home team? There's no advantage in terms of the score, you just cost all the other players their chance at racking up some stats and fans get royally pissed they'll miss a game for which they payed good money. File it under not cool, dude. Ditto for doing obvious crap like picking the puck up off the ice or stuff like piling up snow or dropping the puck into your pads. If you're gonna do it, at least play like a true hockey player...be unfair and try to hide it.
Life: Handling the puck is a good rule for life. Keep the game in motion and don't slow it down or screw it up with stupid stuff. It's easy to be tempted along the path of life by the equivalent of holding the puck, but in the end it only leads to a stoppage of play and a minor penalty. Here are just a few things for which we should be hit with a minor penalty if we handle the puck to gain an advantage:
-- Cheating "just a little" on your income taxes in order to keep the money for yourself to reinvest in Wall Street or go on a four-star vacation. Minor penalty: A year-long audit of every 1040, W-2 and whatever that you ever cheated on, in a small room with one flourescent bulb and an IRS agent with coffee breath, and a full repayment of said taxes, with 50 percent interest.
-- Pirating of your next door neighbor's cable, 'cause, hey he's got a Princeton degree and a cushy day job and he can afford to miss a few movies and sporting events now and again so I can take what life didn't give me. Minor penalty: Being blacklisted at Comcast so you'll never be able to get your own cable, even if you can afford it one day, and having a little chip put into your computer that would prevent you from watching free episodes of anything online (exception: bad network sitcoms with laugh tracks, which you can watch in abundance).
Next up on 1/24: Section 9, Other Fouls. Rule 68, Illegal Substitution. Rule 69, Interference on the Goalkeeper.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
