The game: Pittsburgh vs. Minnesota.
Why I chose it: The Pens have been on a losing streak, and I have personally decided as a fan that we're done with that now.
My peeve: Perhaps I should have sent a memo about being finito with the losing. Final score: Minnesota 4, Pittsburgh 3.
The rules: Section 7, Restraining Fouls. Rule 54, Holding. Rule 55, Hooking.
Number of sections in the rules: 4 (Rule 54). 7 (Rule 55).
Definitions: 54.1, Holding. Any action by a player that restrains or impedes the progress of an opposing player whether or not he is in possession of the puck. 55.1, Hooking. Hooking is the act of using the stick in a manner that enables a player to restrain an opponent. When a player is checking another in such a way that there is only stick-to-stick contact, such action is not to be penalized as hooking.
My favorite highlights: 54.2, Minor Penalty. A minor penalty shall be imposed on a player who holds an opponent by using his hands, arms or legs. A player is permitted to use his arm in a strength move, by blocking his opponent, provided he has body position and is not using his hands in a holding manner, when doing so. A player is not permitted to hold an opponent's stick. A minor penalty shall be assessed to a player who holds an opponent's stick (assessed and announced as "holding the stick"). A player is permitted to protect himself by defending against an opponent's stick. He must immediately release the stick and allow the player to resume normal play.
55.2, Minor Penalty. A minor penalty shall be imposed on a player who impedes the progress of an opponent by "hooking" with his stick. A minor penalty for hooking shall be assessed to any player who uses the shaft of the stick above the upper hand to hold or hook an opponent.
55.3, Major Penalty. A major penalty shall be imposed on any player who injures an opponent by "hooking."
Morals of the story:
The game: I see why these are next to each other in the rulebook. If a player tries to hook another, the player who was hooked can defend himself provided he doesn't do it by holding. This rule needs a visual aid/diagram...what exactly qualifies as a "strength move" and "body position?" Is this a way of saying as long as you're bigger and stronger than the other guy, you can defend yourself? It makes no sense...shouldn't it be the opposite? Provided the attacker has body position and greater strength, you can do what you have to. Oh right...this is hockey...logic has no more place in the rulebook than fairness. And let's face it, is a player really going to think about "uh oh. I'm holding....two minutes, better stop right here." No. He's going to do what he has to, no matter what. Screw you and put me in the box, thank you very much.
Life: Restraint, sadly, is everywhere in life, whether we do it to ourselves or someone does it to us. It's easy to direct our anger at others who impede us, but what about the things we do to hold up our own progress? Aha. Now that's not so easy, is it? I say we should have a hooking and holding rule for every time we hold ourselves back in life.
The offense: Thinking "I'm too tired to go to the gym and get my 18-year-old body back. I'll just sit here and drink a beer instead."
The punishment: Sitting on the couch with carbs is what we call a self-promoting enterprise. Do it enough and it becomes its own punishment. If you do it once a week to take a break from the gym, no penalty shall be assessed. However, if you sit on the couch in such a manner so as to accelerate the natural progression of fat, cellulite and old age, a time machine should be automatically turned on at NASA that hones in on your ass and expands it at double the rate for every night you do this.
The offense: That dream will never come true. It's too hard. I'm not good enough. I'll fail anyway. It's too much risk. It's too pie in the sky. That's stupid. It will never happen. Blah, blah, blah.
The punishment: Never getting a second chance to see if you can try again and be good enough, smart enough, etc. You fall back, you stay back.
Note to anyone who's even thinking about giving up before you even do it, whatever "it" is: I took the chance. I went to New York. And in 10 years, along with a lot of really good times (including travel to London, Spain, France, Italy, Montreal and the ice rink where the US Hockey Team won the gold medal), I also lived in an apartment building where I'm pretty sure illegal business of some sort was transpiring in the apartment above me and I had a neighbor who liked to put up bookshelves at 2 in the morning, a boyfriend (or two or three) who happened to have another girlfriend on the side, served on jury duty in an ax murder trial, got mugged, and just happened to be on my way to work down the street from the Trade Center on September 11. In the last year I lived there, I was fired twice in one year and I lived in an apartment with no couch and a view of a brick wall.
But I took the chance and I got the second one. I live in Portland in a penthouse with a fireplace, a deck, a view of Beaverton and the coast range, a washer/dryer and a foofoo couch that I sometimes fall asleep on its so comfortable. I park my Mini Cooper in my free covered parking space, I have a master's degree on my wall and a steady job in a bad economy. And hey, I started this blog and rediscovered hockey. No pressure, but if I were you -- and I was -- I'd do whatever it is. I loved New York. It just didn't love me.
Up next on 1/13: Section 7, Restraining Fouls. Rule 56, Interference. Preview: this rule explains the "body position" dilemma.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Day 52, Rules 52 and 53
The game: Portland Winterhawks vs. Chilliwack Bruins.
The final score: Portland 3, Chilliwack 1 (Toast - as predicted, thank you). Luke brought the bling and Nino brought...well, Nino. What else do we need?
My peeve: I think I might have cursed the possibility of a shutout. Somewhere in the second period, I was thinking wow, Ian Curtis is playing really well, how cool would a shutout be? Two seconds later, Chilliwack dinked one in. Oy! Sorry boys, I promise never to even THINK about it again. Still, Ian was the second star of the night, so all's well that ends well.
The rules: Section 6, Physical Fouls. Rule 52, Slew-footing. Rule 53, Throwing Equipment.
Number of sections in rules: 3 (Rule 52), 8 (Rule 53).
Definitions: 52.1, Slew-footing. Slew-footing is the act of a player using his leg or foot to knock or kick an opponent's feet from under him, or pushes an opponent's upper body backward with an arm or elbow, and at the same time with a forward motion of his leg, knocks or kicks the opponent's feet from under him, causing him to fall violently. So basically, the only way this one could have ended up in the rule book is that someone did it a few too many times and they didn't have another rule that covered it.
53.1, Throwing Equipment. A player shall not throw a stick or any other object in any zone. A player who has lost or broken his stick may only receive a stick at his own players' bench or be handed one from a teammate on the ice (see 10.3). 10.3, to refresh, is Broken Stick, Player. Note that a later part of the rule states that penalty shots will be awarded to players who were fouled with thrown equipment while on a breakaway. In other words, this is another "don't even try it" rule. It's like clipping...you can't exactly hide it, now can you?
Favorite highlights:
In case you're wondering why broken or lost sticks are left on the ice and not tossed aside: 53.2, Minor Penalty. When the player discards the broken portion of a stick or some other object by tossing or shooting it to the side of the ice (and not over the boards) in such a way as will not interfere with play or opposing player, no penalty shall be assessed for doing so. When moving a stick that is not broken, no penalty shall be assessed, as long as it does not interfere with the play and the player who lost said stick is not attempting to retrieve it, otherwise an interference penalty must be assessed. A minor penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct plus a game misconduct penalty shall be imposed on a player who throws his stick or any part thereof or any other object or piece of equipment outside the playing area in protest of an official's decision. And:
53.4, Misconduct or Game Misconduct Penalty: A misconduct penalty shall be imposed on any player who unintentionally or accidentally throws his stick or any part thereof or any other object or piece of equipment outside the playing area.
Morals of the story:
The game: This is some tricky business, this one. Throw a stick on purpose and you're penalized. Simple enough. But why the penalty for unintentional or accidental? Because what if it wasn't? What if the person did it on purpose and tried to make it look like an accident? As dangerous as it may seem for a stick to be on the ice during play, it's also dangerous to throw it off the ice, because a player, coach or manager could get injured. Look at what happened to Patrice LeClair when he was just sitting on the Montreal bench. A puck went flying off the ice and hit him smack in the face. Not even doing anything and off he went to the ER.
Life: Let's face it, we've all probably done this in life or had it done to us in some way. For example, I'm sure one or two of these will look familiar to you: The driver who cuts us off in traffic, causing a rear end collision for which we are then blamed. The company that hires an outsider for that promotion to which you were entitled and worked for, just because somebody knows somebody or he/she was a sought after professional commodity. The slightly wealthier couple who outbids you on the dream house at the 11th hour with an offer the owner couldn't refuse. A teacher who decided you were just a little too smart and gave you a D just because he could.
I believe a minor penalty is in order for such offenses, as follows:
Minor penalty and game misconduct for bad drivers in the form of being stripped of your license for a minimum of one year (depending on the severity of the offense), being blacklisted on car rental databases, insurance records and used car "dont sell" lists or anywhere else where you might try to sneak by and drive, a bus pass which will be sold to you at double the fee to remind you of your offense on a regular basis, and commuting on a bus route where the bus only comes every 45 minutes and if you miss that 7:52, you'll be late for work with no other way to get there but a $75 cab ride.
Major penalty for "corporate raider" types in the form of an office that has one flourescent light bulb that flickers constantly because the repair guy can never seem to fix it, heat and air conditioning that fail about every other day so you're either hot in summer or cold in winter, an email and online " big brother" feature that sends a note directly to the CEO everytime you try to do a little online shopping or fantasy football instead of your job, which you really don't know how to do anyway since you schmoozed your way to the top with a degree mommy and daddy bought you even when you got crap grades and didn't actually learn anything.
Game misconduct for teachers who willfully interfere in the education of students who are smarter than them, in the form of permanent exile to the most deserted part of Eastern Oregon (or similar area in your state, country, county), where you will be relegated to living in a double-wide that has a television with two channels, if you're lucky, one of which broadcasts the state's annual spelling bee, so that you can watch while said student proceeds to win while spelling the words for which you gave them the D, claiming they were "grammatical errors."
Up next on 1/11: Section 7, Restraining Fouls. Rules 54 and 55, Holding and Hooking.
The final score: Portland 3, Chilliwack 1 (Toast - as predicted, thank you). Luke brought the bling and Nino brought...well, Nino. What else do we need?
My peeve: I think I might have cursed the possibility of a shutout. Somewhere in the second period, I was thinking wow, Ian Curtis is playing really well, how cool would a shutout be? Two seconds later, Chilliwack dinked one in. Oy! Sorry boys, I promise never to even THINK about it again. Still, Ian was the second star of the night, so all's well that ends well.
The rules: Section 6, Physical Fouls. Rule 52, Slew-footing. Rule 53, Throwing Equipment.
Number of sections in rules: 3 (Rule 52), 8 (Rule 53).
Definitions: 52.1, Slew-footing. Slew-footing is the act of a player using his leg or foot to knock or kick an opponent's feet from under him, or pushes an opponent's upper body backward with an arm or elbow, and at the same time with a forward motion of his leg, knocks or kicks the opponent's feet from under him, causing him to fall violently. So basically, the only way this one could have ended up in the rule book is that someone did it a few too many times and they didn't have another rule that covered it.
53.1, Throwing Equipment. A player shall not throw a stick or any other object in any zone. A player who has lost or broken his stick may only receive a stick at his own players' bench or be handed one from a teammate on the ice (see 10.3). 10.3, to refresh, is Broken Stick, Player. Note that a later part of the rule states that penalty shots will be awarded to players who were fouled with thrown equipment while on a breakaway. In other words, this is another "don't even try it" rule. It's like clipping...you can't exactly hide it, now can you?
Favorite highlights:
In case you're wondering why broken or lost sticks are left on the ice and not tossed aside: 53.2, Minor Penalty. When the player discards the broken portion of a stick or some other object by tossing or shooting it to the side of the ice (and not over the boards) in such a way as will not interfere with play or opposing player, no penalty shall be assessed for doing so. When moving a stick that is not broken, no penalty shall be assessed, as long as it does not interfere with the play and the player who lost said stick is not attempting to retrieve it, otherwise an interference penalty must be assessed. A minor penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct plus a game misconduct penalty shall be imposed on a player who throws his stick or any part thereof or any other object or piece of equipment outside the playing area in protest of an official's decision. And:
53.4, Misconduct or Game Misconduct Penalty: A misconduct penalty shall be imposed on any player who unintentionally or accidentally throws his stick or any part thereof or any other object or piece of equipment outside the playing area.
Morals of the story:
The game: This is some tricky business, this one. Throw a stick on purpose and you're penalized. Simple enough. But why the penalty for unintentional or accidental? Because what if it wasn't? What if the person did it on purpose and tried to make it look like an accident? As dangerous as it may seem for a stick to be on the ice during play, it's also dangerous to throw it off the ice, because a player, coach or manager could get injured. Look at what happened to Patrice LeClair when he was just sitting on the Montreal bench. A puck went flying off the ice and hit him smack in the face. Not even doing anything and off he went to the ER.
Life: Let's face it, we've all probably done this in life or had it done to us in some way. For example, I'm sure one or two of these will look familiar to you: The driver who cuts us off in traffic, causing a rear end collision for which we are then blamed. The company that hires an outsider for that promotion to which you were entitled and worked for, just because somebody knows somebody or he/she was a sought after professional commodity. The slightly wealthier couple who outbids you on the dream house at the 11th hour with an offer the owner couldn't refuse. A teacher who decided you were just a little too smart and gave you a D just because he could.
I believe a minor penalty is in order for such offenses, as follows:
Minor penalty and game misconduct for bad drivers in the form of being stripped of your license for a minimum of one year (depending on the severity of the offense), being blacklisted on car rental databases, insurance records and used car "dont sell" lists or anywhere else where you might try to sneak by and drive, a bus pass which will be sold to you at double the fee to remind you of your offense on a regular basis, and commuting on a bus route where the bus only comes every 45 minutes and if you miss that 7:52, you'll be late for work with no other way to get there but a $75 cab ride.
Major penalty for "corporate raider" types in the form of an office that has one flourescent light bulb that flickers constantly because the repair guy can never seem to fix it, heat and air conditioning that fail about every other day so you're either hot in summer or cold in winter, an email and online " big brother" feature that sends a note directly to the CEO everytime you try to do a little online shopping or fantasy football instead of your job, which you really don't know how to do anyway since you schmoozed your way to the top with a degree mommy and daddy bought you even when you got crap grades and didn't actually learn anything.
Game misconduct for teachers who willfully interfere in the education of students who are smarter than them, in the form of permanent exile to the most deserted part of Eastern Oregon (or similar area in your state, country, county), where you will be relegated to living in a double-wide that has a television with two channels, if you're lucky, one of which broadcasts the state's annual spelling bee, so that you can watch while said student proceeds to win while spelling the words for which you gave them the D, claiming they were "grammatical errors."
Up next on 1/11: Section 7, Restraining Fouls. Rules 54 and 55, Holding and Hooking.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Day 50, Rules 50 and 51
The game: Tampa vs. New Jersey. Record setting goalie, honkin' tall French captain. I'm in. But wait....
The final score: Suspended somewhere in the second period after a power failure that couldn't be resolved in a timely manner and rendered play unsafe. The score at the time was Tampa 3, New Jersey 0. The game was on Jersey's turf. Hmmmm...accident or conspiracy? Inquiring minds want to know.
Game on tap: Portland Winterhawks vs. Chilliwack Bruins.
Final score even though it hasn't been played yet: Chilliwack Bruins = TOAST.
The rules: Section 6, Physical Fouls. Rule 50, Kneeing. Rule 51, Roughing.
Number of sections in the rules: 6 (Rule 50). 4 (Rule 51).
Definitions: Kneeing is the act of a player leading with his knee and in some cases extending his leg outwards to make contact with his opponent. Kneeing can be punished with a minor or major penalty (based on severity of the infraction), match penalty (deliberate injury) or game misconduct (assessed in addition to a major). There are no fines or suspensions for kneeing, but the Commissioner may apply supplementary discipline at his discretion. Roughing is a punching motion with the hand or fist, with or without the glove on the hand, normally directed at the head or face of an opponent.
My favorite highlight: 51.1, Roughing (second paragraph). Roughing is a minor altercation that is not worthy of a major penalty to either participant. (An altercation is a situation involving two players with at least one to be penalized). And of course: 51.3, Match Penalty. If, in the judgment of the Referee, a goalkeeper uses his blocking glove to punch an opponent in the head or face in an attempt to or to deliberately injure an opponent, a match penalty must be assessed. To refresh, a major penalty is one in which a player is ruled off the ice for five minutes and no substitution is allowed. Things for which a major may be called include boarding, charging, cross-checking, hooking, kneeing and interference.
Morals of the story:
The game: Excuse me, what is the blocking glove for, if not for pounding someone in the head? Is there no mercy on goalies? These are the guys who purposefully and willingly get in front of pucks going upwards of 75 miles per hour, stare them right in the eye and go "bring it on." Everybody else goes "holy crap! Incoming!" and vacates. These guys hit it, catch it, dive on it, whatever and go "I got it. I'm good. No prob." Now you see why I like netminders so much - if that was me, I'd pound somebody anyway and take the penalty. I don't know how they do it, but it's impressive not only for what it takes to get in front of a puck physically, but for what it takes mentally.
Life: Roughing is the hockey equivalent of a parking ticket or a moving violation, or other motorized offenses that aren't quite a DUI/DWI. Like life, it doesn't quite stop us, does it? Roughing, really, is just a fight that got broken up by the referees. It's a halfway punishment for a halfway crime. Like a shot on goal, it would have become a fight if hadn't been stopped. Here's my advice: don't get caught in a roughing penalty. Live life all the way. Get in the fight and get taken down or take the other guy down. Halfway doesn't work in hockey and it doesn't cut it in life.
Next up: Section 6, Physical Fouls. Rules 52 (Slew-footing) and 53 (Throwing Equipment).
The final score: Suspended somewhere in the second period after a power failure that couldn't be resolved in a timely manner and rendered play unsafe. The score at the time was Tampa 3, New Jersey 0. The game was on Jersey's turf. Hmmmm...accident or conspiracy? Inquiring minds want to know.
Game on tap: Portland Winterhawks vs. Chilliwack Bruins.
Final score even though it hasn't been played yet: Chilliwack Bruins = TOAST.
The rules: Section 6, Physical Fouls. Rule 50, Kneeing. Rule 51, Roughing.
Number of sections in the rules: 6 (Rule 50). 4 (Rule 51).
Definitions: Kneeing is the act of a player leading with his knee and in some cases extending his leg outwards to make contact with his opponent. Kneeing can be punished with a minor or major penalty (based on severity of the infraction), match penalty (deliberate injury) or game misconduct (assessed in addition to a major). There are no fines or suspensions for kneeing, but the Commissioner may apply supplementary discipline at his discretion. Roughing is a punching motion with the hand or fist, with or without the glove on the hand, normally directed at the head or face of an opponent.
My favorite highlight: 51.1, Roughing (second paragraph). Roughing is a minor altercation that is not worthy of a major penalty to either participant. (An altercation is a situation involving two players with at least one to be penalized). And of course: 51.3, Match Penalty. If, in the judgment of the Referee, a goalkeeper uses his blocking glove to punch an opponent in the head or face in an attempt to or to deliberately injure an opponent, a match penalty must be assessed. To refresh, a major penalty is one in which a player is ruled off the ice for five minutes and no substitution is allowed. Things for which a major may be called include boarding, charging, cross-checking, hooking, kneeing and interference.
Morals of the story:
The game: Excuse me, what is the blocking glove for, if not for pounding someone in the head? Is there no mercy on goalies? These are the guys who purposefully and willingly get in front of pucks going upwards of 75 miles per hour, stare them right in the eye and go "bring it on." Everybody else goes "holy crap! Incoming!" and vacates. These guys hit it, catch it, dive on it, whatever and go "I got it. I'm good. No prob." Now you see why I like netminders so much - if that was me, I'd pound somebody anyway and take the penalty. I don't know how they do it, but it's impressive not only for what it takes to get in front of a puck physically, but for what it takes mentally.
Life: Roughing is the hockey equivalent of a parking ticket or a moving violation, or other motorized offenses that aren't quite a DUI/DWI. Like life, it doesn't quite stop us, does it? Roughing, really, is just a fight that got broken up by the referees. It's a halfway punishment for a halfway crime. Like a shot on goal, it would have become a fight if hadn't been stopped. Here's my advice: don't get caught in a roughing penalty. Live life all the way. Get in the fight and get taken down or take the other guy down. Halfway doesn't work in hockey and it doesn't cut it in life.
Next up: Section 6, Physical Fouls. Rules 52 (Slew-footing) and 53 (Throwing Equipment).
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Day 47, Rules 48 and 49
The game: IIHF World Junior Championship, Gold Medal Game, US vs. Canada.
Why I chose it: Portland Winterhawk Luke Walker is on the roster, and the US has the chance to break Canada's spell over this tournament.
The payoff: We broke it. Final score: US 6, Canada 5 in OT. We almost lost it after giving up a two goal lead in the last two minutes. Emphasis on almost.
Note for Portland Winterhawks fans and non-fans alike: Saturday night, 7 pm, the conquering heroes return. Luke brings the bling, and Nino brings newfound fame and fourth place for Switzerland in the WJC, where he was also named to the all-star team. And don't forget Ty Rattie and Tyler Wotherspoon with a solid fourth place showing in the under-17 World Challenge. We are proud to say they call our home their home, even if just for a few years. It's Saturday night in the Rose Garden and all Winterhawks will be present and accounted for and towing shiny things and strong finishes in world tournaments. Visitors the Chiliwack Bruins are toast. Period. Exclamation point.
The rules: Section 6, Physical Fouls. Rule 48, Head-butting. Rule 49, Kicking.
Number of sections in the rules: 6 (Rule 48), 4 (Rule 49).
Definitions: 48.1, Head-butting. The act of head-butting involves a player making intentional contact, or attempting to make contact, with an opponent by leading with his head and/or helmet. Minor for attempting, major for doing, match for injury and game misconduct for someone who gets a major. 49.1, Kicking. The action of a player deliberately using his skate(s) with a kicking motion to propel the puck or to contact an opponent. Match penalty for any player who kicks or attempts to kick another player.
My favorite highlight: 49.2, Goals. Kicking the puck shall be permitted in all zones. A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who uses a distinct kicking motion to propel the puck into the net. A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who kicks a puck that deflects into the net off any player, goalkeeper or official.
A puck that deflects into the net off an attacking player's skate who does not use a distinct kicking motion is a legitimate goal. A puck that is directed into the net by an attacking player's skate shall be a legitimate goal as long as no distinct kicking motion is evident.
A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who kicks any equipment (stick, glove, helmet, etc.) at the puck, including kicking the blade of his own stick, causing the puck to cross the goal line. A five minute match penalty is imposed on players, whether or not injury results from kicking a player.
Morals of the story:
The game: The key here is "distinct kicking motion" and no kicking other players. BUT if you previously studied theatre and dance because you thought it would be a good way to meet girls and and learned a few moves that enable you to kick a puck without the distinct motion...dude, share with your teammates. Not that you want to make a habit of it, because kicking the puck is pretty much a cop-out. But let's face it, players should be armed with all possible weapons in the event of a goal-scoring emergency, such as during overtimes with one minute to go and the whole dumping it into the net the manly way with your stick isn't working.
Life: It's the opposite of life, in a way. We frown upon people who just get lucky in life and don't have to work and struggle a little to earn what they have and get to the top. Kicking your way to the goal is not only allowed, it's expected. I could never be the commissioner of life if kicking was against the rules, because I'd punish the people who just get the lucky bounce and reward the people who scratched and clawed their way to the top. You know who I'm talking about: the woman who's never had a guy cheat on her with her best friend, the men who never have stains on their tie or a scratch on their midlife crisis car, the executive who got the top without actually working because his or her parents bought the Ivy League degree that put them there.
In my rule book, there would be one punishment for those who are just a little too lucky: lifetime match penalty consisting of a "groundhog day"of bad luck in which you wake up every day to the same day, which will start with you spilling coffee on the newly dry cleaned Chanel suit, your vehicle breaking down just before you get to the home stretch of your morning commute, and proceed to a mid-day PowerPoint meltdown during a major meeting with a client, riding the bus with riff raff to the car repair shop, finding out that the credit card you were going to use to pay for the repair is maxed out and ending in a $60 cab ride home, where you discover that you left your housekey on the car key chain, which the auto shop is holding hostage along with your vehicle.
Next up on 1/8/10: Section 6, Physical Fouls. Rules 50 and 51, Kneeing and Roughing.
Why I chose it: Portland Winterhawk Luke Walker is on the roster, and the US has the chance to break Canada's spell over this tournament.
The payoff: We broke it. Final score: US 6, Canada 5 in OT. We almost lost it after giving up a two goal lead in the last two minutes. Emphasis on almost.
Note for Portland Winterhawks fans and non-fans alike: Saturday night, 7 pm, the conquering heroes return. Luke brings the bling, and Nino brings newfound fame and fourth place for Switzerland in the WJC, where he was also named to the all-star team. And don't forget Ty Rattie and Tyler Wotherspoon with a solid fourth place showing in the under-17 World Challenge. We are proud to say they call our home their home, even if just for a few years. It's Saturday night in the Rose Garden and all Winterhawks will be present and accounted for and towing shiny things and strong finishes in world tournaments. Visitors the Chiliwack Bruins are toast. Period. Exclamation point.
The rules: Section 6, Physical Fouls. Rule 48, Head-butting. Rule 49, Kicking.
Number of sections in the rules: 6 (Rule 48), 4 (Rule 49).
Definitions: 48.1, Head-butting. The act of head-butting involves a player making intentional contact, or attempting to make contact, with an opponent by leading with his head and/or helmet. Minor for attempting, major for doing, match for injury and game misconduct for someone who gets a major. 49.1, Kicking. The action of a player deliberately using his skate(s) with a kicking motion to propel the puck or to contact an opponent. Match penalty for any player who kicks or attempts to kick another player.
My favorite highlight: 49.2, Goals. Kicking the puck shall be permitted in all zones. A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who uses a distinct kicking motion to propel the puck into the net. A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who kicks a puck that deflects into the net off any player, goalkeeper or official.
A puck that deflects into the net off an attacking player's skate who does not use a distinct kicking motion is a legitimate goal. A puck that is directed into the net by an attacking player's skate shall be a legitimate goal as long as no distinct kicking motion is evident.
A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who kicks any equipment (stick, glove, helmet, etc.) at the puck, including kicking the blade of his own stick, causing the puck to cross the goal line. A five minute match penalty is imposed on players, whether or not injury results from kicking a player.
Morals of the story:
The game: The key here is "distinct kicking motion" and no kicking other players. BUT if you previously studied theatre and dance because you thought it would be a good way to meet girls and and learned a few moves that enable you to kick a puck without the distinct motion...dude, share with your teammates. Not that you want to make a habit of it, because kicking the puck is pretty much a cop-out. But let's face it, players should be armed with all possible weapons in the event of a goal-scoring emergency, such as during overtimes with one minute to go and the whole dumping it into the net the manly way with your stick isn't working.
Life: It's the opposite of life, in a way. We frown upon people who just get lucky in life and don't have to work and struggle a little to earn what they have and get to the top. Kicking your way to the goal is not only allowed, it's expected. I could never be the commissioner of life if kicking was against the rules, because I'd punish the people who just get the lucky bounce and reward the people who scratched and clawed their way to the top. You know who I'm talking about: the woman who's never had a guy cheat on her with her best friend, the men who never have stains on their tie or a scratch on their midlife crisis car, the executive who got the top without actually working because his or her parents bought the Ivy League degree that put them there.
In my rule book, there would be one punishment for those who are just a little too lucky: lifetime match penalty consisting of a "groundhog day"of bad luck in which you wake up every day to the same day, which will start with you spilling coffee on the newly dry cleaned Chanel suit, your vehicle breaking down just before you get to the home stretch of your morning commute, and proceed to a mid-day PowerPoint meltdown during a major meeting with a client, riding the bus with riff raff to the car repair shop, finding out that the credit card you were going to use to pay for the repair is maxed out and ending in a $60 cab ride home, where you discover that you left your housekey on the car key chain, which the auto shop is holding hostage along with your vehicle.
Next up on 1/8/10: Section 6, Physical Fouls. Rules 50 and 51, Kneeing and Roughing.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Day 46, Rules 46 and 47
The game: LA vs. San Jose and Boston vs. Rangers.
Why I chose them: Prime viewing opportunity for Anze Kopitar and Henrik Lundqvist. It's Monday, it's time to ogle.
Note for hockey fans in Portland (and reason for non-fans to join the fray): The World Junior Championships are all jazzed up about the Winterhawks' Nino Niederreiter. The US Team, with Luke Walker in the lineup, are headed for the goal medal round. Either way the US is coming home with a gold or silver medal and Nino could come home with bronze. Games on tomorrow night, NHL Network. The return of our hometown heroes, with shiny objects in tow...Saturday night, 7 pm, Rose Garden. I forget who we're playing, but who cares? Whoever it is, they're toast with butter anyway.
The rules: Section 6, Physical Fouls. Rules 46, Elbowing and 47, Fighting.
Definitions: 46.1 Elbowing. Elbowing shall mean the use of an extended elbow in a manner that may or may not cause injury. As with previous rules, the minor, major and match penalties and game misconduct depend greatly on the degree of violence and the injury that results. Now, more importantly, the best rule in the book:
47, Fighting. It's one of the longest rules in the book. Total number of sections in the rule: 22. They include: fighting, aggressor, altercation, clearing the area of a fight, continuing a fight, face protection, fighting after the original altercation, fighting off the playing surface, fighting other than during periods of the game, fighting before the drop of the puck, instigator, instigator in the final five minutes of the game, jerseys, third man in and the penalties for failure to proceed directly to the penalty bench. Basically, if you fight anytime before, during, near the end of or after a game, or continue after the original fight, you're doing time in the box, possibly getting suspended and paying a fine.
Official definition: 47.1, Fighting. A fight shall be deemed to have occurred when at least one player punches or attempts to punch an opponent repeatedly or when two players wrestle in such a manner as to make it difficult for the Linesmen to intervene and separate the combatants. The Referees are provided very wide latitude in the penalties with which they may impose under this rule. This is done intentionally to enable them to differentiate between the obvious degrees of responsibility of the participants either for starting the fighting or persisting in continuing the fighting. The discretion provided should be exercised realistically.
The higlights I didn't know but probably should have since as a loyal hockey fan, I love watching this rule get violated:
47.2, Aggressor: The aggressor in an altercation shall be the player who continues to throw punches in an attempt to inflict punishment on his opponent who is in a defenseless position or who is an unwilling combatant. A player must be deemed the aggressor when he has clearly won the fight but he continues throwing and landing punches in a further attempt to inflict punishment and/or injury on his opponent who is no longer in a position to defend himself.
47.11, Instigator: An instigator of an altercation shall be a player who by his actions or demeanor demonstrates any/some of the following criteria: distance traveled, gloves off first, first punch thrown, menacing attitude or posture, verbal instigation or threats, conduct in retaliation to a prior game (or season) incident, obvious retribution for a previous incident in the game or season.
Players guilty of being both the instigator and aggressor are assessed an instigating minor penalty, a major penalty for fighting, a ten-minute misconduct (instigator), and a game misconduct penalty (aggressor).
But I betcha didn't know this one: 47.6, Face Protection. If a player penalized as an instigator of an altercation is wearing a face shield (including a goalkeeper), he shall be assessed an additional unsportsmanlike conduct penalty. Should the player (including the goalkeeper) who instigates the fight be wearing a face shield, but removes it before instigating the altercation, the additional unsportsmanlike conduct shall not be assessed. Only in hockey... if you're willing to drop the shield and fight like a man, that's considered at least partially sportsmanlike.
And this one, just because I think it's ridiculous: 47.13, Jerseys, paragraph 3: A player who engages in a fight and whose jersey is not properly "tied down" (jersey properly fastened to the pants) and who loses his jersey (completely off his torso) in that altercation, shall receive a game misconduct penalty. If the player loses the jersey despite the tie down remaining in tact and attached to the pants, the game misconduct is not applicable, however this must be reported to the League office so that the jersey and the tie down can be examined.
Oh yeah, I'm sure repeat offenders like Carcillo, who basically lives in the box when he's not eating, sleeping or occasionally playing, worries about whether he's "tied down" while he's giving another player permanent brain damage. I don't recall him stopping in the middle of a fight to declare "crap, I'm not tied down! Never mind, I give up. You win."
I love it....they have a rule for petty things like tying down, but head hits and crippling punches to the head...hey, no problem. As long as you got dressed properly, carry on.
The final score: Rangers 3, Boston 2. The B's kept in interesting by tying up a 2-0 game in the final minutes with 2 goals in 1:26. Unfortunately for them, the Rangers answered and shut 'em down.
Favorite fights: Max Talbot putting himself in harm's way with Carcillo during game six of the playoffs with the Flyers just to get his team going. Portland Winterhawks' captain Brett Ponich doing the same thing to Andy Blanke in the Swift Current game Dec. 18. Check it out on hockeyfights.com if you didn't see it live.
The morals of the story:
The game: The most interesting thing about this rule is that it has never stopped players from getting in fights. Really, all it does is give players the choice of how many penalties they want to incur. You can stop once you've knocked the other guy to the ice in a fair fight, or you can keep going and add to the punishment. This rule never says "no fighting allowed." It just delineates a fight from instigation and outlines the punishment. And frankly, if fighting was truly banned, why go to a hockey game at all? Why not ban unfair play altogether and get it over with.
Life: I'm not married, nor do I care to be, but I wonder how many marriages or long term committed relationships would be saved if this rule was instituted for relationships. I would make the punishment fit the crime, were I the NHL commissioner of life fights. Here's an example of how it would work:
Fighting: Defined as any indvidual who deliberately starts a fight over the following: overdrawing the checking account, refusing to load the dishwasher properly and rinse the dishes throughly before putting them in, being unable to go to the grocery store and purchase the right amount of healthy food (note: you cannot claim to have bought a weeks' worth of food because you bought the 10-item special on frozen dinners and a six pack of beer) and dressing children in mismatched clothing for day care because you couldn't figure out how to get an outfit together that consists of a pink flowered dress, pink shoes and a pink ribbon. Pink, Pink, Pink - how hard can it be? Penalty: If accused is guilty of said crime, the aggressor may continue on with harrassment and accused must serve a penalty of having to get an allowance instead of being allowed to carry the checkbook or debit card around in their wallet, not having a home cooked meal ready at the end of the day when you get home for a minimum of 7 days, thus relegating you to rationing said TV dinners and beer, and being forced to attend a "fashion emergency" class for parents whereby you will learn how to coordinate an outfit without the help of Garanimals tags.
Now you see why I'm not married.
Next up: Section 6, Physical fouls. Rules 48 and 49, Head-Butting and Kicking.
Why I chose them: Prime viewing opportunity for Anze Kopitar and Henrik Lundqvist. It's Monday, it's time to ogle.
Note for hockey fans in Portland (and reason for non-fans to join the fray): The World Junior Championships are all jazzed up about the Winterhawks' Nino Niederreiter. The US Team, with Luke Walker in the lineup, are headed for the goal medal round. Either way the US is coming home with a gold or silver medal and Nino could come home with bronze. Games on tomorrow night, NHL Network. The return of our hometown heroes, with shiny objects in tow...Saturday night, 7 pm, Rose Garden. I forget who we're playing, but who cares? Whoever it is, they're toast with butter anyway.
The rules: Section 6, Physical Fouls. Rules 46, Elbowing and 47, Fighting.
Definitions: 46.1 Elbowing. Elbowing shall mean the use of an extended elbow in a manner that may or may not cause injury. As with previous rules, the minor, major and match penalties and game misconduct depend greatly on the degree of violence and the injury that results. Now, more importantly, the best rule in the book:
47, Fighting. It's one of the longest rules in the book. Total number of sections in the rule: 22. They include: fighting, aggressor, altercation, clearing the area of a fight, continuing a fight, face protection, fighting after the original altercation, fighting off the playing surface, fighting other than during periods of the game, fighting before the drop of the puck, instigator, instigator in the final five minutes of the game, jerseys, third man in and the penalties for failure to proceed directly to the penalty bench. Basically, if you fight anytime before, during, near the end of or after a game, or continue after the original fight, you're doing time in the box, possibly getting suspended and paying a fine.
Official definition: 47.1, Fighting. A fight shall be deemed to have occurred when at least one player punches or attempts to punch an opponent repeatedly or when two players wrestle in such a manner as to make it difficult for the Linesmen to intervene and separate the combatants. The Referees are provided very wide latitude in the penalties with which they may impose under this rule. This is done intentionally to enable them to differentiate between the obvious degrees of responsibility of the participants either for starting the fighting or persisting in continuing the fighting. The discretion provided should be exercised realistically.
The higlights I didn't know but probably should have since as a loyal hockey fan, I love watching this rule get violated:
47.2, Aggressor: The aggressor in an altercation shall be the player who continues to throw punches in an attempt to inflict punishment on his opponent who is in a defenseless position or who is an unwilling combatant. A player must be deemed the aggressor when he has clearly won the fight but he continues throwing and landing punches in a further attempt to inflict punishment and/or injury on his opponent who is no longer in a position to defend himself.
47.11, Instigator: An instigator of an altercation shall be a player who by his actions or demeanor demonstrates any/some of the following criteria: distance traveled, gloves off first, first punch thrown, menacing attitude or posture, verbal instigation or threats, conduct in retaliation to a prior game (or season) incident, obvious retribution for a previous incident in the game or season.
Players guilty of being both the instigator and aggressor are assessed an instigating minor penalty, a major penalty for fighting, a ten-minute misconduct (instigator), and a game misconduct penalty (aggressor).
But I betcha didn't know this one: 47.6, Face Protection. If a player penalized as an instigator of an altercation is wearing a face shield (including a goalkeeper), he shall be assessed an additional unsportsmanlike conduct penalty. Should the player (including the goalkeeper) who instigates the fight be wearing a face shield, but removes it before instigating the altercation, the additional unsportsmanlike conduct shall not be assessed. Only in hockey... if you're willing to drop the shield and fight like a man, that's considered at least partially sportsmanlike.
And this one, just because I think it's ridiculous: 47.13, Jerseys, paragraph 3: A player who engages in a fight and whose jersey is not properly "tied down" (jersey properly fastened to the pants) and who loses his jersey (completely off his torso) in that altercation, shall receive a game misconduct penalty. If the player loses the jersey despite the tie down remaining in tact and attached to the pants, the game misconduct is not applicable, however this must be reported to the League office so that the jersey and the tie down can be examined.
Oh yeah, I'm sure repeat offenders like Carcillo, who basically lives in the box when he's not eating, sleeping or occasionally playing, worries about whether he's "tied down" while he's giving another player permanent brain damage. I don't recall him stopping in the middle of a fight to declare "crap, I'm not tied down! Never mind, I give up. You win."
I love it....they have a rule for petty things like tying down, but head hits and crippling punches to the head...hey, no problem. As long as you got dressed properly, carry on.
The final score: Rangers 3, Boston 2. The B's kept in interesting by tying up a 2-0 game in the final minutes with 2 goals in 1:26. Unfortunately for them, the Rangers answered and shut 'em down.
Favorite fights: Max Talbot putting himself in harm's way with Carcillo during game six of the playoffs with the Flyers just to get his team going. Portland Winterhawks' captain Brett Ponich doing the same thing to Andy Blanke in the Swift Current game Dec. 18. Check it out on hockeyfights.com if you didn't see it live.
The morals of the story:
The game: The most interesting thing about this rule is that it has never stopped players from getting in fights. Really, all it does is give players the choice of how many penalties they want to incur. You can stop once you've knocked the other guy to the ice in a fair fight, or you can keep going and add to the punishment. This rule never says "no fighting allowed." It just delineates a fight from instigation and outlines the punishment. And frankly, if fighting was truly banned, why go to a hockey game at all? Why not ban unfair play altogether and get it over with.
Life: I'm not married, nor do I care to be, but I wonder how many marriages or long term committed relationships would be saved if this rule was instituted for relationships. I would make the punishment fit the crime, were I the NHL commissioner of life fights. Here's an example of how it would work:
Fighting: Defined as any indvidual who deliberately starts a fight over the following: overdrawing the checking account, refusing to load the dishwasher properly and rinse the dishes throughly before putting them in, being unable to go to the grocery store and purchase the right amount of healthy food (note: you cannot claim to have bought a weeks' worth of food because you bought the 10-item special on frozen dinners and a six pack of beer) and dressing children in mismatched clothing for day care because you couldn't figure out how to get an outfit together that consists of a pink flowered dress, pink shoes and a pink ribbon. Pink, Pink, Pink - how hard can it be? Penalty: If accused is guilty of said crime, the aggressor may continue on with harrassment and accused must serve a penalty of having to get an allowance instead of being allowed to carry the checkbook or debit card around in their wallet, not having a home cooked meal ready at the end of the day when you get home for a minimum of 7 days, thus relegating you to rationing said TV dinners and beer, and being forced to attend a "fashion emergency" class for parents whereby you will learn how to coordinate an outfit without the help of Garanimals tags.
Now you see why I'm not married.
Next up: Section 6, Physical fouls. Rules 48 and 49, Head-Butting and Kicking.
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Day 45, Rule 45
The game: Pittsburgh vs. Tampa Bay.
Why I chose it: The defending champs face off against a team on the comeback trail. Plus, it's loaded with players who are about to become Olympians.
Pit stop for: The Switzerland vs. Russia World Junior Game. The Portland Winterhawks' own Nino Niederreiter just scored the game-tying goal with 32 seconds to go - it's going to OT. There's a crowd cheering just for him. And...here it comes....he just scored the game winner after two near-miss attempts. The Swiss team has never beaten the Russians at the world juniors. With this victory, they move on to the semi-final medal round.
The rule: Section 6, Physical Fouls. Rule 45, Clipping.
Number of sections in the rule: 6.
Definition: Clipping is the act of throwing the body, from any direction, across or below the knees of an opponent. A player may not deliver a check in a "clipping" manner, nor lower his own body position to deliver a check on or below an opponent's knees. A minor penalty can be assessed for clipping, but if you do it with intent to injure or actual injury occurs, it's a major, match or misconduct.
My favorite highlight: 45.1, Clipping. The above definition and the following: An illegal "low hit" is a check that is delivered by a player who may or may not have both skates on the ice, with his sole intent to check the opponent in the area of his knees. A player may not lower his body position to deliver a check to an opponent's knees.
The final score: Tampa Bay 3, Pittsburgh 1. Major dilemma: I don't know whether to be happy for Tampa for the continuing comeback or sad for the Pens' loss.
Morals of the story:
The game: Hello! I always thought this move was charging. I see guys do it and I'm like, why? It's not like you can say you just fell down. This "is what it is." You do it, you're toast.
Life: I think I saw a few women do this during the post-Christmas shoe sale at Nordstrom. Girlfight on a Saturday afternoon shopping excursion - you don't want to get in the middle of that. But what if you did? What would be the penalty? A minor penalty shall be assessed to anyone desperate enough to do this to save $10 on boots, in the form of forfeiting said purchase all together, along with any sale coupons. A major penalty of not being able to return to the store for the half yearly sale will be assessed if the offending shopper injures anyone in the attempt to clip another customer.
Next up on 1/3: Section 6, Physical Fouls. Rule 46, Elbowing.
Why I chose it: The defending champs face off against a team on the comeback trail. Plus, it's loaded with players who are about to become Olympians.
Pit stop for: The Switzerland vs. Russia World Junior Game. The Portland Winterhawks' own Nino Niederreiter just scored the game-tying goal with 32 seconds to go - it's going to OT. There's a crowd cheering just for him. And...here it comes....he just scored the game winner after two near-miss attempts. The Swiss team has never beaten the Russians at the world juniors. With this victory, they move on to the semi-final medal round.
The rule: Section 6, Physical Fouls. Rule 45, Clipping.
Number of sections in the rule: 6.
Definition: Clipping is the act of throwing the body, from any direction, across or below the knees of an opponent. A player may not deliver a check in a "clipping" manner, nor lower his own body position to deliver a check on or below an opponent's knees. A minor penalty can be assessed for clipping, but if you do it with intent to injure or actual injury occurs, it's a major, match or misconduct.
My favorite highlight: 45.1, Clipping. The above definition and the following: An illegal "low hit" is a check that is delivered by a player who may or may not have both skates on the ice, with his sole intent to check the opponent in the area of his knees. A player may not lower his body position to deliver a check to an opponent's knees.
The final score: Tampa Bay 3, Pittsburgh 1. Major dilemma: I don't know whether to be happy for Tampa for the continuing comeback or sad for the Pens' loss.
Morals of the story:
The game: Hello! I always thought this move was charging. I see guys do it and I'm like, why? It's not like you can say you just fell down. This "is what it is." You do it, you're toast.
Life: I think I saw a few women do this during the post-Christmas shoe sale at Nordstrom. Girlfight on a Saturday afternoon shopping excursion - you don't want to get in the middle of that. But what if you did? What would be the penalty? A minor penalty shall be assessed to anyone desperate enough to do this to save $10 on boots, in the form of forfeiting said purchase all together, along with any sale coupons. A major penalty of not being able to return to the store for the half yearly sale will be assessed if the offending shopper injures anyone in the attempt to clip another customer.
Next up on 1/3: Section 6, Physical Fouls. Rule 46, Elbowing.
Day 44, Rule 44
The game: The Winter Classic, of course. Philly vs. Boston on their home ice, in this case a frozen Fenway Park.
Why I chose it: Duh. For non-hockey types, this is the Super Bowl for hockey fans. It's pond hockey, NHL style.
The rule: Section 6, Physical Fouls. Rule 44, Checking from Behind.
Number of sections in the rule: 6.
Definition: A check from behind is a check delivered on a player who is not aware of the impending hit, therefore unable to protect or defend himself, and contact is made on the back part of the body. When a player intentionally turns his body to create contact with his back, no penalty shall be assessed. This is a major penalty and above only offense - no minors are assessed for checking from behind. It starts at major and goes up to game misconduct and suspension (for two misconducts).
My favorite highlights: 44.3, Major Penalty: Any player who cross-checks, pushes or charges from behind an opponent who is unable to protect or defend himself, shall be assessed a major penalty. This penalty applies anywhere on the playing surface (see 44.5). 44.5, Game Misconduct: A game misconduct penalty must be assessed anytime a major penalty is assessed for checking from behind. A match penalty is assessed if the player attempts to or deliberately injures another by checking from behind.
The final score: Boston 2, Philadelphia 1 (in OT). The first time the home team has won a Winter Classic. The men's United States Olympic roster was also revealed, and it includes Tim Thomas, Brooks Orpik and Zach Parise.
The morals of the story:
The game: This is like the unspoken rule that you don't shoot a man in the back, but in this case you get busted for it. This carries so many penalties, why would you even do it? You can't even get away with purposefully turning around to force the other player to commit the check and get thrown in the box. Well, silly, because sometimes this is the only way to take a player down and if you have to spend a few minutes in the box, so be it. That's what big time players have to do to make it in the NHL.
Life: This is the hockey equivalent of blindsiding. Except in life, there's no ref to make the call and no penalty to the offending player or fateful action. The check from behind happens and you're left to pick up the pieces. I say we make our own rules for the life equivalent of checking from behind. For example:
-- For the significant other who declares they never really loved you and are now leaving you with the two kids and dog to drive a non-age appropriate car and date an even more non-age appropriate girlfriend, a major penalty shall be assessed in the form of draining said spouse's offshore bank account that he thought you didn't know about, using it to take a girls only spa trip to Tahiti, hiring a nanny for the little whippersnappers and for hiring a lawyer who will leave the little twit with nothing more than his inappropriate vehicle.
-- For investors like Madoff who think nothing of running a ponzi scheme on someone else's dime and trying to sneak it past even their own family, forget jail. A major penalty will be assessed in the form of living in a double-wide in the middle of the Nevada with a 1988 Toyota Corolla with 110,000 miles on it that only runs just long enough to go to the one Piggly Wiggly store where you can buy evaporated milk, stale bread and expired Chef Boyardee products with your half-ration of food stamps, after which the tow truck has to haul your stalled vehicle back to the trailer, provided of course you pay up front by signing over your welfare check as payment.
Next up: Section 6, Physical Fouls. Rule 45, Clipping.
Why I chose it: Duh. For non-hockey types, this is the Super Bowl for hockey fans. It's pond hockey, NHL style.
The rule: Section 6, Physical Fouls. Rule 44, Checking from Behind.
Number of sections in the rule: 6.
Definition: A check from behind is a check delivered on a player who is not aware of the impending hit, therefore unable to protect or defend himself, and contact is made on the back part of the body. When a player intentionally turns his body to create contact with his back, no penalty shall be assessed. This is a major penalty and above only offense - no minors are assessed for checking from behind. It starts at major and goes up to game misconduct and suspension (for two misconducts).
My favorite highlights: 44.3, Major Penalty: Any player who cross-checks, pushes or charges from behind an opponent who is unable to protect or defend himself, shall be assessed a major penalty. This penalty applies anywhere on the playing surface (see 44.5). 44.5, Game Misconduct: A game misconduct penalty must be assessed anytime a major penalty is assessed for checking from behind. A match penalty is assessed if the player attempts to or deliberately injures another by checking from behind.
The final score: Boston 2, Philadelphia 1 (in OT). The first time the home team has won a Winter Classic. The men's United States Olympic roster was also revealed, and it includes Tim Thomas, Brooks Orpik and Zach Parise.
The morals of the story:
The game: This is like the unspoken rule that you don't shoot a man in the back, but in this case you get busted for it. This carries so many penalties, why would you even do it? You can't even get away with purposefully turning around to force the other player to commit the check and get thrown in the box. Well, silly, because sometimes this is the only way to take a player down and if you have to spend a few minutes in the box, so be it. That's what big time players have to do to make it in the NHL.
Life: This is the hockey equivalent of blindsiding. Except in life, there's no ref to make the call and no penalty to the offending player or fateful action. The check from behind happens and you're left to pick up the pieces. I say we make our own rules for the life equivalent of checking from behind. For example:
-- For the significant other who declares they never really loved you and are now leaving you with the two kids and dog to drive a non-age appropriate car and date an even more non-age appropriate girlfriend, a major penalty shall be assessed in the form of draining said spouse's offshore bank account that he thought you didn't know about, using it to take a girls only spa trip to Tahiti, hiring a nanny for the little whippersnappers and for hiring a lawyer who will leave the little twit with nothing more than his inappropriate vehicle.
-- For investors like Madoff who think nothing of running a ponzi scheme on someone else's dime and trying to sneak it past even their own family, forget jail. A major penalty will be assessed in the form of living in a double-wide in the middle of the Nevada with a 1988 Toyota Corolla with 110,000 miles on it that only runs just long enough to go to the one Piggly Wiggly store where you can buy evaporated milk, stale bread and expired Chef Boyardee products with your half-ration of food stamps, after which the tow truck has to haul your stalled vehicle back to the trailer, provided of course you pay up front by signing over your welfare check as payment.
Next up: Section 6, Physical Fouls. Rule 45, Clipping.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
