See here. It's the best quality I could find.
Then see here. Its just as stupid now, a week does not change anything. Well, it changes the fans that are screaming.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Leader or Drunk Guy
Listen to Colin Campbell's intervew with TSN Radio here.
Ask yourself quick question: Does he sound more like a leader or a drunk guy? He sounds like a guy who is desperately trying to save his job. This interview is embarrassing for the NHL.
Ask yourself quick question: Does he sound more like a leader or a drunk guy? He sounds like a guy who is desperately trying to save his job. This interview is embarrassing for the NHL.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Hitting Area
Please do me a favour - Download the NHL rulebook from here, and point out to me where the hitting area is defined with examples for a thorough explanation of such a confusing concept.
Or where it is mentioned at all.
Or where it is mentioned at all.
Torres' Non-Suspension
See here. This keeps getting worse.
Apparently, the NHL has mandated that the area behind the net is designated as a hitting area. They've identified an area of the ice where all other rules are relaxed when talking about illegal hits. In order to "keep hitting in the game", they want to ensure that players are given more leeway when hitting behind the net. What is the problem with this? Lets count the problems:
1. The most significant problem is that you are left with rules applied in certain areas of the ice and not in others. This is an inconsistancy in an area where inconsistancy is not allowed - player safety.
2. Optics. After the recent suspensions of Cooke and Torres, letting Raffi Torres off with this hit just looks bad. It makes the NHL look inconsistant, weak and confused. I'd bet that Torres already missing two playoff games had input to this decision - "We can't suspend him for more PLAYOFF games, can we?"
3. We're talking about behind the net here - players can (and do) take a run from centre ice and hit a player at full steam. This is the most dangerous part of the ice due to the speeds players can gain, as well as not being able to see a steamrolling player due to the crowd in front of the net. Not only is the rule inconsistant. Not only does it look bad. It's really stupid.
One other thing - why isn't the NHLPA screaming about this? Isn't that a hostile workplace?
What is the reason we have this "rule"?
I started to write the answer to this question, but it will have to be another post. The answer is too long. Coming soon.
Apparently, the NHL has mandated that the area behind the net is designated as a hitting area. They've identified an area of the ice where all other rules are relaxed when talking about illegal hits. In order to "keep hitting in the game", they want to ensure that players are given more leeway when hitting behind the net. What is the problem with this? Lets count the problems:
1. The most significant problem is that you are left with rules applied in certain areas of the ice and not in others. This is an inconsistancy in an area where inconsistancy is not allowed - player safety.
2. Optics. After the recent suspensions of Cooke and Torres, letting Raffi Torres off with this hit just looks bad. It makes the NHL look inconsistant, weak and confused. I'd bet that Torres already missing two playoff games had input to this decision - "We can't suspend him for more PLAYOFF games, can we?"
3. We're talking about behind the net here - players can (and do) take a run from centre ice and hit a player at full steam. This is the most dangerous part of the ice due to the speeds players can gain, as well as not being able to see a steamrolling player due to the crowd in front of the net. Not only is the rule inconsistant. Not only does it look bad. It's really stupid.
One other thing - why isn't the NHLPA screaming about this? Isn't that a hostile workplace?
What is the reason we have this "rule"?
I started to write the answer to this question, but it will have to be another post. The answer is too long. Coming soon.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Battle of the Stupids
OK, who is stupider?
Matt Cooke - For delivering a headshot days after the NHL published a new headshot rule?
Raffi Torres - For delivering a headshot in his first game back from a headshot-related suspension?
Colin Campbell - For putting in place a series of band-aid solutions whose result is the current state of the NHL's violence and disrespect.
Matt Cooke - For delivering a headshot days after the NHL published a new headshot rule?
Raffi Torres - For delivering a headshot in his first game back from a headshot-related suspension?
Colin Campbell - For putting in place a series of band-aid solutions whose result is the current state of the NHL's violence and disrespect.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Review of the Recent Debacle and Predictions
Apparently, the NHL is excited about headshots, finally. It's suprising what a well placed letter can do.
Quick Review
1. Sydney Crosby got a concussion
2. The Islanders and the Penguins went crazy
3. Mario Lemieux complained
4. The NHL decided to get tough
5. Matt Cooke went stupid. Unspeakably stupid
6. The NHL "Got Tough" on Cooke
Well, the NHL numbered this incorrectly. They put the most important item fourth. Why would you wait for circumstances to demand changes that can be made at any time? WHY WAIT? Why would you wait until the NHL's biggest star went down with a concussion before treating it like a crisis? The lack of leadership here is baffling.
As with all other "crackdowns" that the NHL has tried in the past, this has been handled in a haphazard, random, unplanned and short-sighted manner. In a word - reactionary. I work with many people on a daily basis who would recognize that this is the wrong approach to take in dealing with this issue - or any issue. The NHL is consistently "behind the problem". They are reacting to events and letting the events control the discussion. I'd be fired for that - most people would be fired for that.
Predictions
- The NHL's new concussion protocol is going to have little effect, especially during the playoffs. We will see approx two instances early in the playoffs of players being taken off the ice for monitoring, but the teams will scream foul because the players will be missing for about a full period and return to the game without symptoms. It will be seen as unneccessary for the playoffs.
- The NHL's new tough stance will be short lived and fail - again. I know, this is a radical position, but I'll stick to it. The NHL can be tough on "repeat offenders", but as soon as a hockey player that makes more than $4 Million (maybe $5 Mil) is up for suspension, it will fall apart.
- The NHL will not hire me to fix these issues. We'll have more of the same. I'd bet my house on this one.
Quick Review
1. Sydney Crosby got a concussion
2. The Islanders and the Penguins went crazy
3. Mario Lemieux complained
4. The NHL decided to get tough
5. Matt Cooke went stupid. Unspeakably stupid
6. The NHL "Got Tough" on Cooke
Well, the NHL numbered this incorrectly. They put the most important item fourth. Why would you wait for circumstances to demand changes that can be made at any time? WHY WAIT? Why would you wait until the NHL's biggest star went down with a concussion before treating it like a crisis? The lack of leadership here is baffling.
As with all other "crackdowns" that the NHL has tried in the past, this has been handled in a haphazard, random, unplanned and short-sighted manner. In a word - reactionary. I work with many people on a daily basis who would recognize that this is the wrong approach to take in dealing with this issue - or any issue. The NHL is consistently "behind the problem". They are reacting to events and letting the events control the discussion. I'd be fired for that - most people would be fired for that.
Predictions
- The NHL's new concussion protocol is going to have little effect, especially during the playoffs. We will see approx two instances early in the playoffs of players being taken off the ice for monitoring, but the teams will scream foul because the players will be missing for about a full period and return to the game without symptoms. It will be seen as unneccessary for the playoffs.
- The NHL's new tough stance will be short lived and fail - again. I know, this is a radical position, but I'll stick to it. The NHL can be tough on "repeat offenders", but as soon as a hockey player that makes more than $4 Million (maybe $5 Mil) is up for suspension, it will fall apart.
- The NHL will not hire me to fix these issues. We'll have more of the same. I'd bet my house on this one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
