The coach is the boss, he's the one who pays with his job when he loses too many games, so I understand that he'll put the best team he can on the ice in order to do that, win the next game, rather than look at the long-term view, or even the medium term. But I'm surprised that Alex Semin wasn't given a longer trial period, after sitting out seven games.
From the get-go, I expected Alex to be a somewhat oblong peg that we'd have to hammer into a round hole, it wouldn't be an easy fit, probably. He's being brought in precisely because he has a different skill set, he brings something to the team that it doesn't have. Kind of like when George Parros and Douglas Murray were brought in, you know what you're getting, you'll live with the shortcomings to benefit from their contribution in other areas.
Sure, he's not a forechecking menace or a burner like Pavel Bure, but his creativity, his ability to hold on to the puck and be unpredictable, to go through C to get to B, was a wildcard on our roster, a changeup in a fastball pitcher's arsenal. We lacked a certain amount of finish, of skill in the Top 6 when looking at our lineup on June 30. He was brought in to try to address that, a 'beau risque'.
I don't think that a one-game trial after sitting out seven games was a fair chance for him to continue his adaptation to his new team, the new system, his linemates. He can be forgiven for being antsy, nervous in his return to the ice. He didn't really have a a chance to get into a groove.
He certainly didn't help his case with a bad penalty in the third period against the Canucks. That doesn't inspire confidence in his decision-making. The RDS staff raised an eyebrow when they reported that he had skipped the optional morning skate on Monday. You'd think he would have tried to put his best foot forward, got some advice from Andrei about this and realized that he should make an appearance.
The thing about social media is you read something over and over again, and it starts to sound true, it's certainly truthy. I don't know if he is indeed so slow because he's 'finished', because he doesn't have the leg strength anymore, but based on some of the lowlights Monday, you can see how that might be what we're driven to conclude.
But again, as a fan, I was advocating a ten to twenty game trial, to allow him to get or remain in game shape, to get in rhythm, to figure things out.
Yet the coaches are the ones who know the player best, are closest to this. They get a feel for whether he's pointed in the right direction. They can tell if he can work out of this funk, whether he's starting to 'get it'. They're the ones who talk to the players, and can feel if allowing him to run a long leash might alienate the others, who are doing everything that's asked and working hard and making good decisions and being defensively responsible and attending all the optional skates.
So it's easy for me to advocate that he be given good linemates and powerplay time to get in gear. It's harder for the coach to tell that to Dale Weise and Thomas Fleischmann.
If the coaches decide they have seen enough, that the lottery ticket isn't a winner, I expect the brain trust will be decisive. I don't think we'll see Alex going to St. John's, it'll be a clean break, they'll eat the contract, glad that it's a shorty. They won't prolong the headache by dumping him on Sylvain Lefebvre, by stealing icetime away from the kids who do have a chance to help this team down the line.
Thursday, 19 November 2015
Saturday, 14 November 2015
Alex Semin draws back into the Canadiens lineup against the Avalanche after sitting out seven games
Long-awaited news today broke that Alex Semin will draw back into the lineup against the Avalanche tonight after sitting out seven games as a healthy scratch. His diminished production, along with a couple of gaffes against the Maple Leafs, had knocked him out of the lineup, and the fact that the team had success without him kept him out.
I'm really encouraged with the statements made by Alex today. He carries a reputation of being moody and diffident, but he outwardly here at least seems to be saying all the right things, to be in the right frame of mind. This is certainly preferable to the reports we got a week ago from TSN 690's Chris Nilan and The Gazette's Pat Hickey about him being uninvolved and unenergetic at practice.
When we were giving the porcine a makeover this summer, we batted around the concept that being in a demanding hockey market, with strong team leadership, and especially with a support network of fellow Russians, that he might respond well, might have more success than he did in Carolina near the end.
We may be sensing this effect if we judge purely on his answers to reporters. Instead of being insulted and disruptive, he’s being accountable and optimistic. He’s showing resolve, saying he’s working hard and improving. He’s apparently taking this healthy-scratch period as a challenge and an opportunity, rather than a deal-breaker.
Alex brings something to our team that we need, which is puck skill and vision and talent. He may not always play with the same outward determination of a Brendan Gallagher, but you build a team with various parts, not identical ones. His ability to extend the play, to do the unexpected, is valuable.
We’ll take his defensive lapses in stride, as long as he contributes strongly on the offensive side of the ledger, and that he is ‘responsible’ defensively. He doesn’t need to be Bob Gainey, just to be in the right place at the right time, give basic effort in his zone. And make good decisions, not take needless chances as he did against the Leafs, when two of his outright giveaways led to two goals against.
Michel Therrien often says that “it’s a process”, in reference to a lot of things. Let’s see how this is proceeding, how Alex responds now and as the season unfolds.
Bigger nets aren't heresy.
To me, the idea of adjusting the size of the nets is met with way more outrage than it should. We're acting like the 4' X 6' is the holiest of holy parameters of hockey, whereas in fact that's not the case at all.
It used to be that hockey nets were just two stakes driven or frozen into the ice, with no crossbar or netting or anything, it looked like goalposts in football. There was a goal judge right on the ice, behind the net, to determine when pucks had gone through. Eventually the crossbar was added, and someone had the bright idea to put in the mesh.
Also, at the time, goalies weren't allowed to drop on the ice to make saves, they had to remain standing. So lots of moving parts, lots of variables in this equation, and big changes during the development of the game.
Just because the dimensions we use now are nice round numbers doesn't mean that they're immutable. Basketball is caught in this trap, and I think suffers from it. The height of the rim in the past, when small players lobbed underhand at it, wasn't a factor, but now with seven-footers and players who can dunk, it does come into play.
Volleyball has a variable height of its net depending on the level of competition and gender. College kids play with a net set lower than Olympians do, and that makes sense. And it's not at arbitrarily 'even' round numbers, but rather numbers that allow the bump-set-spike game to unfold at each level, but not be so achievable that it becomes a farce when too easy.
Hockey nets could easily be made wider by nudging the posts outward a couple of inches each or so. The argument that goalies nowadays are prepped and coached to within an inch of their life and doing so would change their angles and confuse them to me is not a valid counter. Because that's exactly what we want, to move the sport away from systems and coaching, to individual creativity and talent. Carey Price and Roberto Luongo would adapt, and maybe some of the others who are more tall than good wouldn't, and that's where we want to head.
As I've stated before, I'd be leery of making the nets taller, more than a couple inches at most, in fear that doing so would incite players to shoot ever higher. 100 mph slapshots are best kept low. Players shouldn't be rewarded for whizzing shots at the height where others' chins are. Safety considerations should keep the crossbar at this level it is currently.
There was a picture of an oddly-shaped net that circulated during Gary Bettman's Third Lockout that piqued my interest but which I haven't been able to find since then, the posts were the same distance apart as currently at ice level, but then flared out at an angle, before being perfectly vertical again at about the three-foot level. This configuration didn't mess with the goalie's 'angles', but would provide lots and lots of room upstairs for snipers when goalies dropped to their knees.
Another proposed net just kept the same dimensions, except that the posts and crossbar curved, they bulged outwards at their middle, again giving more room for shooters but not changing the goalies' coaching and angles.
Either of these alternatives could be tested in camp 'lab' conditions, in lower leagues, during exhibition seasons, etc. You could see which solution worked, fostered more 'clean' goals, allowed talented players to see more net and find it with the puck, and there's every chance that no one would die.
Baseball has done this in the past too. The pitcher's mound now rests at an odd 60'6" distance from home plate, but it wasn't always that way. It used to be at a 'round' number in the Abner Doubleday era, but was adjusted closer or farther based on how hitters were faring hitting the ball, among other changes baseball made to its game. Same with the height of the mound, it could be raised or lowered, and was, based on whether the hitters or pitchers had too much of an advantage.
Goalies used to be, according to lore, the short fat kids who didn't skate well, who couldn't be used elsewhere on the ice. They were wearing the stinky moldy communal rink or league equipment made of leather and felt, or bore the additional cost of their own gear. During the game they were told to adopt a 'standup style', and followed this since, weighed down with so much waterlogged gear, they learned quickly that getting back up after flopping down was very tiring.
Nowadays, goalie is the glamour position with swoosh gear that many kids are drawn to. Tall athletic kids who in the past would play centre now end up in goal. They're armoured with closed-cell foam and kevlar and other space-age materials that are better and lighter than horsehair.
These changes are counterbalanced somewhat by the better composite sticks skaters use nowadays, but not completely. While skaters can fire off better shots at the net, the advances in goaltending have been greater.
So there's no sin in trying to move the needle back a smidge, give goalies a bit more of a challenge.
I completely agree that obstruction and other anti-hockey tactics should be refereed out of the game. Systems should be less important than the talent of a Mario Lemieux or Connor McDavid. Maybe enact 'illegal defences' like the NBA does. Outlaw teams lining up four or five abreast at their own blue line. I've read before a suggestion that forwards shouldn't be allowed to skate backwards in the neutral zone when they're defending.
So sure, first and foremost open up the game, let it flow. Let the players play, let them decide the outcome of the game, but by this I mean the real players, versus checkers and grinders and 'energy' players. I mean the opposite of what Don Cherry means. Generally, in fact.
But in tandem with those approaches, there's nothing scandalous about increasing the size of the net, in a reasonable response to the way the goaltending has advanced since the 4 X 6 was enshrined in the 1920's or whenever. A hundred years of progress in other facets of the game should be reflected in this aspect of the rules as well.
It used to be that hockey nets were just two stakes driven or frozen into the ice, with no crossbar or netting or anything, it looked like goalposts in football. There was a goal judge right on the ice, behind the net, to determine when pucks had gone through. Eventually the crossbar was added, and someone had the bright idea to put in the mesh.
Also, at the time, goalies weren't allowed to drop on the ice to make saves, they had to remain standing. So lots of moving parts, lots of variables in this equation, and big changes during the development of the game.
Just because the dimensions we use now are nice round numbers doesn't mean that they're immutable. Basketball is caught in this trap, and I think suffers from it. The height of the rim in the past, when small players lobbed underhand at it, wasn't a factor, but now with seven-footers and players who can dunk, it does come into play.
Volleyball has a variable height of its net depending on the level of competition and gender. College kids play with a net set lower than Olympians do, and that makes sense. And it's not at arbitrarily 'even' round numbers, but rather numbers that allow the bump-set-spike game to unfold at each level, but not be so achievable that it becomes a farce when too easy.
Hockey nets could easily be made wider by nudging the posts outward a couple of inches each or so. The argument that goalies nowadays are prepped and coached to within an inch of their life and doing so would change their angles and confuse them to me is not a valid counter. Because that's exactly what we want, to move the sport away from systems and coaching, to individual creativity and talent. Carey Price and Roberto Luongo would adapt, and maybe some of the others who are more tall than good wouldn't, and that's where we want to head.
As I've stated before, I'd be leery of making the nets taller, more than a couple inches at most, in fear that doing so would incite players to shoot ever higher. 100 mph slapshots are best kept low. Players shouldn't be rewarded for whizzing shots at the height where others' chins are. Safety considerations should keep the crossbar at this level it is currently.
There was a picture of an oddly-shaped net that circulated during Gary Bettman's Third Lockout that piqued my interest but which I haven't been able to find since then, the posts were the same distance apart as currently at ice level, but then flared out at an angle, before being perfectly vertical again at about the three-foot level. This configuration didn't mess with the goalie's 'angles', but would provide lots and lots of room upstairs for snipers when goalies dropped to their knees.
Another proposed net just kept the same dimensions, except that the posts and crossbar curved, they bulged outwards at their middle, again giving more room for shooters but not changing the goalies' coaching and angles.
Either of these alternatives could be tested in camp 'lab' conditions, in lower leagues, during exhibition seasons, etc. You could see which solution worked, fostered more 'clean' goals, allowed talented players to see more net and find it with the puck, and there's every chance that no one would die.
Baseball has done this in the past too. The pitcher's mound now rests at an odd 60'6" distance from home plate, but it wasn't always that way. It used to be at a 'round' number in the Abner Doubleday era, but was adjusted closer or farther based on how hitters were faring hitting the ball, among other changes baseball made to its game. Same with the height of the mound, it could be raised or lowered, and was, based on whether the hitters or pitchers had too much of an advantage.
Goalies used to be, according to lore, the short fat kids who didn't skate well, who couldn't be used elsewhere on the ice. They were wearing the stinky moldy communal rink or league equipment made of leather and felt, or bore the additional cost of their own gear. During the game they were told to adopt a 'standup style', and followed this since, weighed down with so much waterlogged gear, they learned quickly that getting back up after flopping down was very tiring.
Nowadays, goalie is the glamour position with swoosh gear that many kids are drawn to. Tall athletic kids who in the past would play centre now end up in goal. They're armoured with closed-cell foam and kevlar and other space-age materials that are better and lighter than horsehair.
These changes are counterbalanced somewhat by the better composite sticks skaters use nowadays, but not completely. While skaters can fire off better shots at the net, the advances in goaltending have been greater.
So there's no sin in trying to move the needle back a smidge, give goalies a bit more of a challenge.
I completely agree that obstruction and other anti-hockey tactics should be refereed out of the game. Systems should be less important than the talent of a Mario Lemieux or Connor McDavid. Maybe enact 'illegal defences' like the NBA does. Outlaw teams lining up four or five abreast at their own blue line. I've read before a suggestion that forwards shouldn't be allowed to skate backwards in the neutral zone when they're defending.
So sure, first and foremost open up the game, let it flow. Let the players play, let them decide the outcome of the game, but by this I mean the real players, versus checkers and grinders and 'energy' players. I mean the opposite of what Don Cherry means. Generally, in fact.
But in tandem with those approaches, there's nothing scandalous about increasing the size of the net, in a reasonable response to the way the goaltending has advanced since the 4 X 6 was enshrined in the 1920's or whenever. A hundred years of progress in other facets of the game should be reflected in this aspect of the rules as well.
Sunday, 8 November 2015
Game 16: Canadiens 4, Bruins 2
The Canadiens win a game against the dreaded Bruins last night, although it seemed like they were also playing against the refs, the War Room in Toronto, the Board of Governors, the League office, ...
Here are my disjointed thoughts and anguished cries of outrage from last night.
--All these calls, every single one that the refs are blowing, could easily be dealt with and corrected, gotten right, by a Television Match Official like the Rugby World Cup used.
Easy peasy.
But Gary Bettman is otherwise busy sneaking an Ensludge Tar Sands & Prosperity logo on the Flames’ jersey.
--(upon the Canadiens' second goal being scored, later to be disallowed) Plekanec! #1 Line! Chara on his ass complaining!
--(after the review and reversal of the goal) The NHL is a farce. They don’t want the ‘toe in the crease’ fiasco anymore, since the Brett Hull goal against the Sabres in the Cup final, they allow players to be in the paint, contrary to international hockey, so Gally was allowed to be there.
Despite Mike Johnson calling it a tough call, it wasn’t at all. He didn’t touch Gustaffson until the Big Ape pushed him in there. At the very least, there was no indisputable evidence.
The fix is in. Refs hate Montréal. Toronto hates Montréal. Sportsnet hates Montréal.
--Lars goes to the net, is rewarded. Remember that Lars.
--I’ll make the request again, to anyone out there who has access to that info, to compare how many Toronto War Room calls involving Montréal fall in our favour, and how many go against us.
By simple math, the league average should be 50%. With a large enough sample, each team should be pretty close to that figure. Win some, lose some.
I’d be interested to see if we are at 50%, or significantly lower, and we can do the work to see if there is a statistical significance in the number we come up with.
Another curlicue would be to see the results involving us against Toronto and against Boston. Just to see. Probably too few instances to get a large enough sample size, but nonetheless, let’s look at it. For sport.
And if I’m crazy, if it turns out that we are at 50%, not 10 or 20% in our favour, the refs massively against us, then I’ll make goodly use of my employee assistance program and work on my persecution complex with a mental health care professional.
The guys in Finance have been complaining about my memos anyway, maybe I am missing some receipts after all, maybe they're not out to get me…
--(about Max Pacioretty sealing the win with an empty-net goal) In truth, I’m actually really happy to see Tomas or Max out there with the empty nets, and actually burying their chances this year, sealing wins.
Last year and before, it was like pulling teeth trying to get an empty-net goal, they’d be missing and hitting posts and then flailing around in their end. This year, we’re giving the coup de grâce early, putting an end to it.
I love that this season, we’re burying the empty-netters, and quickly. Saves on the wear and tear, the blocked shots and the getting plastered against the glass with the refs letting everything slide.
Last year we lost a couple of games after missing empty nets. This season, we’re nailing that coffin down.
--The dive by Millar on Andrei Markov, the too-many-men penalty, all these could/would be viewed in real time by a Television Match Official, who could advise the ref when he makes a wrong call, or when he misses one.
In the case of the dive, the penalty, fine, suspension, all that could happen in real time, the call reversed immediately, on the spot. None of this “We made the call, we have to stick with our decision” BS.
--(about Nathan Beaulieu's crosscheck on Zac Rinaldo) Black and white, it was a crosscheck to his head.
And I couldn’t be more proud of Nate. Absolutely perfect circumstance for that.
Why Claude Julien had that goon Rinaldo out on the ice at that time of the game, that’s the real scandal here. Nate did the sane thing.
“Here, eat Sher-Wood, scumbag.”
I’ve been driven to this by the NHL, but I really, really liked the sneer he had immediately after, and as he jawed with the rest of the Bruins bench on his way off the ice. No pretending, no dishonesty.
“Yeah, I did it, what of it? I’d do it again if I had to. Gimme your toothless penalty and whatever, what do I care.”
--I don’t have a lot of time for Mario Tremblay since his DUI trial and his comments to the police officer were released, but he nails it here:
“Si Beaulieu avait fait ça à un joueur de hockey, j’aurait dit que Nathan a levé (perdu) la tête, mais avec un gars comme Rinaldo qui vient pour le blesser, …”
Mathieu Darche: “Si il fait ça à Patrice Bergeron, ç’t’une autre affaire…”
Mario: “D’accord avec toi.”
Translated:
Mario: “If Beaulieu does that to a hockey player, I’d say Nathan lost his head, lost his cool there, but with a guy like Rinaldo who’s coming in to hurt him, …”
Mathieu Darche: “If he does that to Patrice Bergeron, that’s a different story…”
Mario: “Of course.”
--The NHL is so awful, they don’t know what they want, what they’re trying to achieve. They think they want more offence, more scoring, so they fudged the rules a little bit in terms of allowing goals in off skates, in scrums, allowing the play to ‘develop’.
So they want goals, no matter how, but when Gally is in the crease, as he’s allowed to be according to their own rules, then gets pushed into the goalie by a defender, and it has no influence on whether the goal would have been saved, somehow that gets overturned.
If the NHL wants more goals, all they have to do is prevent all the obstruction, the crosschecking that is endemic. Anybody that’s in arm’s reach in the NHL is fair game for a crosscheck to the back or arm or shoulder. That’s viewed as ‘playing tight’, as defending. Give the slowpokes like Adam McQuaid the obligation to actually skate, to wrestle the puck away rather than just whale on Tomas Plekanec, and all of a sudden he flushes out of the league, for a Yannic Weber or Marc-André Bergeron, who can actually skate and play hockey.
If they want goalies to not be interfered with, they can adopt the international rule, which is that when an attacking player treads onto the goalie crease without the puck, play is whistled dead and the faceoff is outside the zone. Problem solved. No player on offence gets into the crease for fear of negating a scoring chance.
Then, call the defenceman for obstruction if they push Gally into the goalie. He’s outside the crease, allowed to be there, use your frigging whistle when he gets mugged by Dion Phaneuf.
Enough with the wishy-washy “We want more goals so we’ll allow scrummy goals but not too scrummy…”, clean up the game instead. Keep players out of the crease. But allow Alex Galchenyuk to wow us with his moves without having to endure crosschecks and slashes all game. Those are fouls. They’re cheating. They favour the untalented, the goon, over the skilled, the spectacular player. That’s how Zac Rinaldo stays in the game, why the Bruins actually traded for this felon.
Give us spectacular goals by spectacular players, not scrummy goals by scummy players.
--I can’t wait for all the links to all the Boston papers tomorrow. That’ll be some delicious schadenfreude with our waffles.
Here are my disjointed thoughts and anguished cries of outrage from last night.
--All these calls, every single one that the refs are blowing, could easily be dealt with and corrected, gotten right, by a Television Match Official like the Rugby World Cup used.
Easy peasy.
But Gary Bettman is otherwise busy sneaking an Ensludge Tar Sands & Prosperity logo on the Flames’ jersey.
--(upon the Canadiens' second goal being scored, later to be disallowed) Plekanec! #1 Line! Chara on his ass complaining!
--(after the review and reversal of the goal) The NHL is a farce. They don’t want the ‘toe in the crease’ fiasco anymore, since the Brett Hull goal against the Sabres in the Cup final, they allow players to be in the paint, contrary to international hockey, so Gally was allowed to be there.
Despite Mike Johnson calling it a tough call, it wasn’t at all. He didn’t touch Gustaffson until the Big Ape pushed him in there. At the very least, there was no indisputable evidence.
The fix is in. Refs hate Montréal. Toronto hates Montréal. Sportsnet hates Montréal.
--Lars goes to the net, is rewarded. Remember that Lars.
--I’ll make the request again, to anyone out there who has access to that info, to compare how many Toronto War Room calls involving Montréal fall in our favour, and how many go against us.
By simple math, the league average should be 50%. With a large enough sample, each team should be pretty close to that figure. Win some, lose some.
I’d be interested to see if we are at 50%, or significantly lower, and we can do the work to see if there is a statistical significance in the number we come up with.
Another curlicue would be to see the results involving us against Toronto and against Boston. Just to see. Probably too few instances to get a large enough sample size, but nonetheless, let’s look at it. For sport.
And if I’m crazy, if it turns out that we are at 50%, not 10 or 20% in our favour, the refs massively against us, then I’ll make goodly use of my employee assistance program and work on my persecution complex with a mental health care professional.
The guys in Finance have been complaining about my memos anyway, maybe I am missing some receipts after all, maybe they're not out to get me…
--(about Max Pacioretty sealing the win with an empty-net goal) In truth, I’m actually really happy to see Tomas or Max out there with the empty nets, and actually burying their chances this year, sealing wins.
Last year and before, it was like pulling teeth trying to get an empty-net goal, they’d be missing and hitting posts and then flailing around in their end. This year, we’re giving the coup de grâce early, putting an end to it.
I love that this season, we’re burying the empty-netters, and quickly. Saves on the wear and tear, the blocked shots and the getting plastered against the glass with the refs letting everything slide.
Last year we lost a couple of games after missing empty nets. This season, we’re nailing that coffin down.
--The dive by Millar on Andrei Markov, the too-many-men penalty, all these could/would be viewed in real time by a Television Match Official, who could advise the ref when he makes a wrong call, or when he misses one.
In the case of the dive, the penalty, fine, suspension, all that could happen in real time, the call reversed immediately, on the spot. None of this “We made the call, we have to stick with our decision” BS.
Imagine if you will the NHL embraces the World Cup Rugby refereeing method. So you have one on-ice official, one Television Match Official with two or three propeller heads providing him with multiple views on a panoply of screens. The two line judges can also at any time signal they witnessed an infraction, speak to the ref at the next opportunity.[As play is going on]TMO: “Chris, I have a dangerous play by 72 White for you to review when you get a chance…”[Both refs are miked, in constant radio communication with each other, the crowd and television audience can hear this conversation as it happens.]Chris Lee: “Okay…”[Chara trips over his disgusting feet, falls offside, causes a whistle]TMO: “Okay Chris, at the 16:30 minute mark, you’ll see #72 White slewfoot #51 Red.”[Three different angles are played by the TMO staff. The crowd in the arena get to watch along on the scoreboard screen. The folks at home get these views as well. The ref and the line judges watch at the same time, on a screen or tablet, whichever is more convenient.]TMO: “That’s it Chris, those are the best angles.”Lee: “Okay, so I see a slewfoot, that’s a two minute penalty, and a yellow card for a dangerous play, I don’t think that’s worth a red card?…”TMO: “I agree Chris, yellow card only…”[Addressing the crowd, the Bruins bench]Lee: “We have a minor penalty, tripping, #72 Boston, and a ten-minute misconduct.”***Note: In Rugby, the penalty would be a ‘free kick’, option of a kick for touch and possession at the ensuing lineout, or kick at goal for three points, or a scrum. The penalized team would be one player down, playing 14 against 15.In today’s game, with the technology, there is no need for the secrecy, the impenetrable War Room, the headsets and the opacity of the decision, which the NHL practices now.
--(about Nathan Beaulieu's crosscheck on Zac Rinaldo) Black and white, it was a crosscheck to his head.
And I couldn’t be more proud of Nate. Absolutely perfect circumstance for that.
Why Claude Julien had that goon Rinaldo out on the ice at that time of the game, that’s the real scandal here. Nate did the sane thing.
“Here, eat Sher-Wood, scumbag.”
I’ve been driven to this by the NHL, but I really, really liked the sneer he had immediately after, and as he jawed with the rest of the Bruins bench on his way off the ice. No pretending, no dishonesty.
“Yeah, I did it, what of it? I’d do it again if I had to. Gimme your toothless penalty and whatever, what do I care.”
--I don’t have a lot of time for Mario Tremblay since his DUI trial and his comments to the police officer were released, but he nails it here:
“Si Beaulieu avait fait ça à un joueur de hockey, j’aurait dit que Nathan a levé (perdu) la tête, mais avec un gars comme Rinaldo qui vient pour le blesser, …”
Mathieu Darche: “Si il fait ça à Patrice Bergeron, ç’t’une autre affaire…”
Mario: “D’accord avec toi.”
Translated:
Mario: “If Beaulieu does that to a hockey player, I’d say Nathan lost his head, lost his cool there, but with a guy like Rinaldo who’s coming in to hurt him, …”
Mathieu Darche: “If he does that to Patrice Bergeron, that’s a different story…”
Mario: “Of course.”
--The NHL is so awful, they don’t know what they want, what they’re trying to achieve. They think they want more offence, more scoring, so they fudged the rules a little bit in terms of allowing goals in off skates, in scrums, allowing the play to ‘develop’.
So they want goals, no matter how, but when Gally is in the crease, as he’s allowed to be according to their own rules, then gets pushed into the goalie by a defender, and it has no influence on whether the goal would have been saved, somehow that gets overturned.
If the NHL wants more goals, all they have to do is prevent all the obstruction, the crosschecking that is endemic. Anybody that’s in arm’s reach in the NHL is fair game for a crosscheck to the back or arm or shoulder. That’s viewed as ‘playing tight’, as defending. Give the slowpokes like Adam McQuaid the obligation to actually skate, to wrestle the puck away rather than just whale on Tomas Plekanec, and all of a sudden he flushes out of the league, for a Yannic Weber or Marc-André Bergeron, who can actually skate and play hockey.
If they want goalies to not be interfered with, they can adopt the international rule, which is that when an attacking player treads onto the goalie crease without the puck, play is whistled dead and the faceoff is outside the zone. Problem solved. No player on offence gets into the crease for fear of negating a scoring chance.
Then, call the defenceman for obstruction if they push Gally into the goalie. He’s outside the crease, allowed to be there, use your frigging whistle when he gets mugged by Dion Phaneuf.
Enough with the wishy-washy “We want more goals so we’ll allow scrummy goals but not too scrummy…”, clean up the game instead. Keep players out of the crease. But allow Alex Galchenyuk to wow us with his moves without having to endure crosschecks and slashes all game. Those are fouls. They’re cheating. They favour the untalented, the goon, over the skilled, the spectacular player. That’s how Zac Rinaldo stays in the game, why the Bruins actually traded for this felon.
Give us spectacular goals by spectacular players, not scrummy goals by scummy players.
--I can’t wait for all the links to all the Boston papers tomorrow. That’ll be some delicious schadenfreude with our waffles.
Brendan Gallagher interferes with Bruins goalie according to the NHL's twisted logic, goal disallowed.
What Brendan Gallagher did on the overturned goal last night vs. the Bruins was perfectly legal according to the NHL rules. A player has a right to be in the goalie crease as long as he doesn't contact with the goalie and interfere with his ability to make a save.
We all remember previously how players weren't allowed to be in the crease without the puck, which led to many overturned goals and controversies, until Brett Hull scored a goal in the Stanley Cup final while his skate preceded the puck in the crease. The Stars celebrated a Stanley Cup-winning goal, the officials didn't have the stones to put a halt to things and overturn the goal, and the NHL quietly did away with that rule later on.
So the NHL can't have it both ways. Brendan Gallagher is allowed to be in the paint to dig for the puck, deflect it, drive defencemen crazy.
What Zdeno Chara did though, that was illegal. According to its rule book, a player can't crosscheck another, or physically interfere or hit another who doesn't have the puck. Yet none of his actions were in question on this play. The NHL tolerates, or rather fosters this persistent, pernicious level of rule-breaking in its game, whether it be slashing or hooking or holding or interference or tripping or slew-footing.
So all the handwringing about Gally needing to be careful, adjust his game, since the refs have him in their sights, it may be practical, but it's not underpinned by the rules of the NHL. This is one of those code things, how you can't interfere with a player, but if a forward chips a puck past a defenceman, the defenceman can get in his way, slow him down, hold up his stick and make a barrier out of it, and the refs, the league, the GM's give that an indulgent shrug of the shoulders. That's just a hockey play. Defence. Playing tight.
As I wrote last night, the fix is in. This wasn't a call based on the facts, it was based on the fact that the league, the networks, the refs, they all hate Montréal, and they can't be objective when they have to make a judgment call involving our team.
If the league doesn't want Brendan to be in the crease, they can enact the very reasonable, very effective IIHF rule:
Protection of Goalkeeper: The play is stopped if an attacking player stands in the goal crease.
(Rule 534 – Interference – If an attacking player deliberately stands in the goal crease, without interfering with the goalkeeper, the referee shall stop the play and the ensuing face-off shall take place at the nearest face-off spot in the neutral zone.)
Simple. And, the subsequent faceoff occurs outside the zone, so attacking players learn quickly to avoid the crease.
But the NHL wants more goals. Not necessarily more spectacular Gilbert Perreault or Hakan Loob goals, just goals. And they're not going to ban microfracture-causing slashes, or Don Cherry-pleasing obstruction, so they'll generate more ugly, scrummy, bouncy, deflecty goals by allowing players to crash the net and get in the goalie's kitchen and make him uncomfortable.
Except when it's the Canadiens. Then they'll object.
The NHL is a farce.
We all remember previously how players weren't allowed to be in the crease without the puck, which led to many overturned goals and controversies, until Brett Hull scored a goal in the Stanley Cup final while his skate preceded the puck in the crease. The Stars celebrated a Stanley Cup-winning goal, the officials didn't have the stones to put a halt to things and overturn the goal, and the NHL quietly did away with that rule later on.
So the NHL can't have it both ways. Brendan Gallagher is allowed to be in the paint to dig for the puck, deflect it, drive defencemen crazy.
What Zdeno Chara did though, that was illegal. According to its rule book, a player can't crosscheck another, or physically interfere or hit another who doesn't have the puck. Yet none of his actions were in question on this play. The NHL tolerates, or rather fosters this persistent, pernicious level of rule-breaking in its game, whether it be slashing or hooking or holding or interference or tripping or slew-footing.
So all the handwringing about Gally needing to be careful, adjust his game, since the refs have him in their sights, it may be practical, but it's not underpinned by the rules of the NHL. This is one of those code things, how you can't interfere with a player, but if a forward chips a puck past a defenceman, the defenceman can get in his way, slow him down, hold up his stick and make a barrier out of it, and the refs, the league, the GM's give that an indulgent shrug of the shoulders. That's just a hockey play. Defence. Playing tight.
As I wrote last night, the fix is in. This wasn't a call based on the facts, it was based on the fact that the league, the networks, the refs, they all hate Montréal, and they can't be objective when they have to make a judgment call involving our team.
If the league doesn't want Brendan to be in the crease, they can enact the very reasonable, very effective IIHF rule:
Protection of Goalkeeper: The play is stopped if an attacking player stands in the goal crease.
(Rule 534 – Interference – If an attacking player deliberately stands in the goal crease, without interfering with the goalkeeper, the referee shall stop the play and the ensuing face-off shall take place at the nearest face-off spot in the neutral zone.)
Simple. And, the subsequent faceoff occurs outside the zone, so attacking players learn quickly to avoid the crease.
But the NHL wants more goals. Not necessarily more spectacular Gilbert Perreault or Hakan Loob goals, just goals. And they're not going to ban microfracture-causing slashes, or Don Cherry-pleasing obstruction, so they'll generate more ugly, scrummy, bouncy, deflecty goals by allowing players to crash the net and get in the goalie's kitchen and make him uncomfortable.
Except when it's the Canadiens. Then they'll object.
The NHL is a farce.
Thursday, 5 November 2015
Mike Babcock agrees with me that hockey nets should be made bigger.
Toronto coach Mike Babcock brought up his favourite hobby horse again, stating that since players are getting bigger and bigger, the nets are consequently smaller and smaller.
I agree there needs to be an adjustment in the size of the nets.
And Pierre McGuire was interviewed on TSN 1040 Vancouver, talking about how 6’6″ goalies on their knees still cover the top part of the net, so they should raise the crossbar 6-8 inches to force these guys to stand up. He doesn’t think they should make the nets wider.
I’m unsure about this. Raising the crossbar goes against player safety I think, there will be pucks flying around at chin or ear height way more often. P.K. won’t have the incentive to shoot low, he’ll let ‘er rip everytime. Someone will get hurt.
Making the net wider would give more room lower down, the goalies couldn’t blot out the bottom of the net completely with their pads. And they couldn’t reach over with their blocker or glove from their knees, they’d be dead in the water. The incentive to remain upright would develop from there, that they can move side-to-side, post-to-post.
Some people think it’s heresy, but sports benefit from this type of tinkering. Baseball is famous for adjusting the height of the pitcher’s mound, and the distance to the plate, settling now on 60’6″.
NFL football moved the goalposts to the back of the endzone, for player safety and more open offence, but also because the kickers were getting too good. The uprights have also been moved closed together, again because kickers and training methods and playing surfaces and conditions are getting too good.
Volleyball has a different net height depending on the level of competition and the gender of the players.
So to think that the 4′ X 6′ net dimension is sacrosanct, brought down by Moses on the stone tablets (maybe it was one of the Commandments from 11 to 15?) is reactionary, a refusal to bow to the realities of the modern game.
The size of the nets made sense when Emile Francis was goaltending, but not currently with Ben Bishop.
I agree there needs to be an adjustment in the size of the nets.
And Pierre McGuire was interviewed on TSN 1040 Vancouver, talking about how 6’6″ goalies on their knees still cover the top part of the net, so they should raise the crossbar 6-8 inches to force these guys to stand up. He doesn’t think they should make the nets wider.
I’m unsure about this. Raising the crossbar goes against player safety I think, there will be pucks flying around at chin or ear height way more often. P.K. won’t have the incentive to shoot low, he’ll let ‘er rip everytime. Someone will get hurt.
Making the net wider would give more room lower down, the goalies couldn’t blot out the bottom of the net completely with their pads. And they couldn’t reach over with their blocker or glove from their knees, they’d be dead in the water. The incentive to remain upright would develop from there, that they can move side-to-side, post-to-post.
Some people think it’s heresy, but sports benefit from this type of tinkering. Baseball is famous for adjusting the height of the pitcher’s mound, and the distance to the plate, settling now on 60’6″.
NFL football moved the goalposts to the back of the endzone, for player safety and more open offence, but also because the kickers were getting too good. The uprights have also been moved closed together, again because kickers and training methods and playing surfaces and conditions are getting too good.
Volleyball has a different net height depending on the level of competition and the gender of the players.
So to think that the 4′ X 6′ net dimension is sacrosanct, brought down by Moses on the stone tablets (maybe it was one of the Commandments from 11 to 15?) is reactionary, a refusal to bow to the realities of the modern game.
The size of the nets made sense when Emile Francis was goaltending, but not currently with Ben Bishop.
Wisecracks on Thoughts
Justin Bourne regularly does a "Thoughts on Thoughts" column whereby he comments on some of the items in Elliotte Friedman's excellent "30 Thoughts" columns.
I thought I'd try my hand at a "Wisecracks on Thoughts" column of my own, blatantly misappropriating Mr. Friedman's work work from this week.
3. (About the review process) I’m astounded how little talk there is about how the Rugby World Cup’s Television Match Official system effectively, comprehensively improved the games, and how it could easily be adapted to hockey or football.
5. ( “Hearing Buffalo is looking for a left-shot defenceman,”) But, we already gifted them Josh Gorges.
10. (Preds contract discussions with Filip Forsberg and Seth Jones) Offer sheets!
22. (22. About his top three on defence : “Make the easy play early. You might skate it up ice, but if there are two or three sticks in the lane, you can’t go north/south as quick as we like to.”) It’s what I’ve been telling Jarred Tinordi for a while now. If your D partner is open, slide him the puck. There. Your job is done. Gilbert Delorme agrees.
23. (Alain Vigneault: “I try never to critique a win. Guys have to have fun. I can still get my points across. When you’re winning, you have to keep a pleasant environment.”) Social media, are you listening? The Canadiens are winning.
24. (Dale Tallon: ‘Forget the money.’ You’ve got it. It’s over. Nothing can change that. Don’t try to earn it all in one shift.) About players trying a little too hard, maybe that’s what Alex is doing, trying to justify his coronation every single shift.
25. (Matt Cullen on Marc-Andre Fleury: “Guys love playing in front of him.”) When was the last time we read anything positive on Marc-André? Refreshing.
28. (The CHL/NCAA Cold War): I’m forgetting another example, but the Danny Kristo story makes me wonder if, in most cases, a player is better served playing NCAA for 2 or 3 seasons, and then jumping to the (minor) pros, instead of staying and graduating on their senior year. The fourth or even fifth year (if a player redshirts) doesn’t seem to add to the progression. You’ve got a prospect who’s one year older and more mature, playing against ever-easier competition, the older players having graduated and been replaced with teenagers.
Maybe Mac Bennett and Greg Pateryn come to mind. Their fourth season wasn’t a quantum leap, more like stagnation. A player getting used to their surroundings, getting comfortable?
In the old days, getting a degree meant something tangible, I’d applaud them for getting that Michigan education, preparing for if things don’t pan out. But salaries have exploded to such a degree, they can even make decent money in the AHL, compared to their classmates who are on internships or entry-level jobs struggling to pay off student loans. I think if a young adult has a chance at the pros, he needs to take it, and backfill in the missing classes over the next few summers.
29. (Canucks GM Jim Benning on Jared McCann and Jake Virtanen) If they tail off, it wouldn’t surprise me if they get the Anthony Duclair and Curtis Lazar treatment, get sent down to the WJC team, then finish off the season in Junior with a race to the playoffs.
Canadiens send Greg Pateryn to the Icecaps for a conditioning assignment, overload the right side of the blue line.
The Canadiens have sent Greg Pateryn to the St. John's Icecaps, in the midst of a long road trip, for a 'conditioning assignment', since he hasn't had a chance to play since the start of the season.
I was wondering if they’d resort to that. Considerations include the fact that the player has to agree to the assignment. Greg is secure with a two-year one-way deal, so I think trooper that he is, he wouldn’t say no to a chance to play.
The Canadiens were probably thinking an injury has to hit us anytime now…
And once he has four or five games under his belt, do they rotate Greg back up and send Jarred down? Does he agree to it?
I also wondered about who sits out with the IceCaps. Darren Dietz is on the top pairing, probably the ‘next man up’, certainly on the right side. Morgan Ellis has been having a strong season, after an uneven couple of seasons to start his pro career. And Brett Lernout, the rightie on the third pairing, is playing well and needs the minutes to develop too. I think the team might be banking on this youngster in their future planning.
Ryan Johnston is hurt, so that reduces the backlog, but Josiah Didier and Dalton Thrower need minutes too. Does one or both get sent down to Brampton for a couple of weeks?
Pundits have been predicting a trade of prospect defencemen for a couple seasons now, and they convinced me, but now I’m kind of feeling shorted, anxious. Let’s flip Morgan Ellis for Brett Ritchie already.
I was wondering if they’d resort to that. Considerations include the fact that the player has to agree to the assignment. Greg is secure with a two-year one-way deal, so I think trooper that he is, he wouldn’t say no to a chance to play.
The Canadiens were probably thinking an injury has to hit us anytime now…
And once he has four or five games under his belt, do they rotate Greg back up and send Jarred down? Does he agree to it?
I also wondered about who sits out with the IceCaps. Darren Dietz is on the top pairing, probably the ‘next man up’, certainly on the right side. Morgan Ellis has been having a strong season, after an uneven couple of seasons to start his pro career. And Brett Lernout, the rightie on the third pairing, is playing well and needs the minutes to develop too. I think the team might be banking on this youngster in their future planning.
Ryan Johnston is hurt, so that reduces the backlog, but Josiah Didier and Dalton Thrower need minutes too. Does one or both get sent down to Brampton for a couple of weeks?
Pundits have been predicting a trade of prospect defencemen for a couple seasons now, and they convinced me, but now I’m kind of feeling shorted, anxious. Let’s flip Morgan Ellis for Brett Ritchie already.
Lorne Molleken oversees tumultuous start to the season as Head Coach of the Vancouver Giants
The year the Saskatoon Blades went to the Memorial Cup with Darren Dietz and Dalton Thrower on the blue line, and Lorne Molleken behind the bench, was a tumultuous one. There were rumours that there was a clash between Dalton and the head coach, causing the prospect to be benched, injured in a rumoured dressing room fight, and traded in the off-season to the Vancouver Giants.
From watching the Sportsnet documentaries “Road to the Memorial Cup” in 2013, I got a sense that the coach was old-school, more profane than communicative, and that you wouldn’t want to be on his bad side. I posted many times that he seemed to hammer home the point that players had to play hard, 100%, but I never saw him at the chalkboard or discussing systems or strategy.
In the past couple of months, two players have resigned from the Giants and gone home to play at a lower level. One player demanded and received a trade. Now, word is that today two more players have quit the team.
Meanwhile, the Giants are sinking like a stone. Based on what the journos are writing though, Lorne Molleken isn't the problem.
So as ready as I was to cast stones, blame the firebrand coach for the troubles at the Pacific Coliseum, there is more to the story, actually more backstory than anything.
From watching the Sportsnet documentaries “Road to the Memorial Cup” in 2013, I got a sense that the coach was old-school, more profane than communicative, and that you wouldn’t want to be on his bad side. I posted many times that he seemed to hammer home the point that players had to play hard, 100%, but I never saw him at the chalkboard or discussing systems or strategy.
In the past couple of months, two players have resigned from the Giants and gone home to play at a lower level. One player demanded and received a trade. Now, word is that today two more players have quit the team.
Meanwhile, the Giants are sinking like a stone. Based on what the journos are writing though, Lorne Molleken isn't the problem.
So as ready as I was to cast stones, blame the firebrand coach for the troubles at the Pacific Coliseum, there is more to the story, actually more backstory than anything.
Leave Alex Galchenyuk the time and leash to develop at centre.
While the Canadiens were winning nine straight, the usual critics who nitpick the Montréal Canadiens to death were appropriately muted. Now that they've lost three of five, they're finding warts again.
One target has been Alex Galchenyuk, who started well early but has struggled lately, along with his linemates Alex Semin and Lars Eller. Mr. Semin has been benched, and Brian Flynn and Devante Smith-Pelly have been tried in his place. Lars Eller now is being poked and prodded and weighed for shipment to another line or to another team entirely.
I think it's way too early to worry about this, to float potential fixes. You know what would be a good solution for Alex Galchenyuk? Patience.
We all said that last year, that he shouldn’t have been removed from the centre position and returned to the left wing after such a short period, that we should have ridden out the cold streak, invested that time in his development, even if it cost us a few losses.
Further, we were quick to warn/accuse Michel Therrien of having a quick hook this season, of sticking to the plan, instead of growing impatient at the first hurdle.
Let’s follow our counsel on social media. Let’s give the kid time to work out of this spell. He’ll have time to practice the next couple of weeks, on this homestand. No need for a trade, for a callup, to rob Peter to pay Paul by stripping other lines of their talent for his benefit.
The team is purring right now, there’s no need for surgery. Let him work out of his funk. Let the coaches remind the guys of their roles.
Lars needs to go to the net and corners more, not as a thumper, but as a physical player who works hard to get the puck, protects it well and takes it to the net, an overgrown Gally.
Alex Semin needs to adjust a little, make the appropriate play in the appropriate circumstances, not the giveaways he made against Toronto when he could have kept possession or cleared his zone. In the offensive zone, his creativity and lateral thinking, the extra moves he’ll make once in a while work well, surprise opponents, but he needs to be a little hungrier for goals, to do more volume shooting.
And Alex Galchenyuk needs to think in terms of making small contributions. No need for a homerun every plate appearance, just take quality swings, make contact, move the runners, get on base with walks if that’s what the pitchers are giving him. The homers will come by making contact on good swings.
Let’s be resolute. This is what we said we’d do. Chucky is finally a centre, and we wouldn’t desist at the first hint of trouble.
In football, your best athlete should be your QB, he handles the ball most. In hockey, the same should probably apply. The player who has the puck most should be your most skilled, if possible.
Alex will be more valuable to us if he’s a centre, everything else being equal. He has the skills and the physical abilities for it, we’re not banging a square peg in a round hole I don’t think, so let’s let him learn the role.
And we’ll have to appreciate the exploits of Dale and Torrey and Paul Byron and Tomas Fleischmann and Mike Condon while our “#2 line” rounds into form. Enjoy this win streak. Instead of finding fault and picking at warts.
One target has been Alex Galchenyuk, who started well early but has struggled lately, along with his linemates Alex Semin and Lars Eller. Mr. Semin has been benched, and Brian Flynn and Devante Smith-Pelly have been tried in his place. Lars Eller now is being poked and prodded and weighed for shipment to another line or to another team entirely.
I think it's way too early to worry about this, to float potential fixes. You know what would be a good solution for Alex Galchenyuk? Patience.
We all said that last year, that he shouldn’t have been removed from the centre position and returned to the left wing after such a short period, that we should have ridden out the cold streak, invested that time in his development, even if it cost us a few losses.
Further, we were quick to warn/accuse Michel Therrien of having a quick hook this season, of sticking to the plan, instead of growing impatient at the first hurdle.
Let’s follow our counsel on social media. Let’s give the kid time to work out of this spell. He’ll have time to practice the next couple of weeks, on this homestand. No need for a trade, for a callup, to rob Peter to pay Paul by stripping other lines of their talent for his benefit.
The team is purring right now, there’s no need for surgery. Let him work out of his funk. Let the coaches remind the guys of their roles.
Lars needs to go to the net and corners more, not as a thumper, but as a physical player who works hard to get the puck, protects it well and takes it to the net, an overgrown Gally.
Alex Semin needs to adjust a little, make the appropriate play in the appropriate circumstances, not the giveaways he made against Toronto when he could have kept possession or cleared his zone. In the offensive zone, his creativity and lateral thinking, the extra moves he’ll make once in a while work well, surprise opponents, but he needs to be a little hungrier for goals, to do more volume shooting.
And Alex Galchenyuk needs to think in terms of making small contributions. No need for a homerun every plate appearance, just take quality swings, make contact, move the runners, get on base with walks if that’s what the pitchers are giving him. The homers will come by making contact on good swings.
Let’s be resolute. This is what we said we’d do. Chucky is finally a centre, and we wouldn’t desist at the first hint of trouble.
In football, your best athlete should be your QB, he handles the ball most. In hockey, the same should probably apply. The player who has the puck most should be your most skilled, if possible.
Alex will be more valuable to us if he’s a centre, everything else being equal. He has the skills and the physical abilities for it, we’re not banging a square peg in a round hole I don’t think, so let’s let him learn the role.
And we’ll have to appreciate the exploits of Dale and Torrey and Paul Byron and Tomas Fleischmann and Mike Condon while our “#2 line” rounds into form. Enjoy this win streak. Instead of finding fault and picking at warts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)