Friday Morning Coffee- The 'C' Word
It's the breaking point for me, kids. Am I giving up on the Canucks? No. I've had it with the media and the NHL and I am not going to take anymore crap from them. It's time to get some stuff off my chest. So doing my best to keep this somewhat sane, it's time to talk about a word that begins with the letter 'C', it's overuse, and a couple other 'C' words that are the real issue here.
When the Alexandre Burrows / Stephane Auger incident happened, it was a PR nightmare for the NHL. Something happened there, and it looked really bad, even to the most jaded of hockey fans. But instead of trying to assure everyone that there really wasn't an issue, we were treated to a load of Bettmanisms. Blanket denial, indignant statement about how the issue is made up and you should be ashamed for even suggesting it, 'thorough' investigation, followed up by predictable outcome: Burrows wasn't really lying, but since there's no evidence, we will fine him, and then give a glowing recommendation of our officials, even though this one will be barred from contact with this team, and will not be given playoff assignments. We do however have complete faith in him. Who are you gonna believe: us, or your lying eyes?
Some media members, to their credit were willing to at least look at it objectively. But for every reporter or blogger that did, there were two who not only towed the NHL's line of propaganda, they took the opportunity to cast disparaging remarks about Burrows, the Canucks organization, the entire province of BC and especially the fans.
Canucks fans are now painted with a wide brush because some, used to dismissive attitudes from the NHL and some media outlets, felt as though there were a conspiracy against the team. The problem all along has been this: rather than look at a situation that happened to us that affects the entire league and the game itself, the NHL and the media act as though everyone in British Columbia has stock in Alcan.
From the Leafs organization's tampering, to Augergate, to the latest issues: an improperly called too many men on the ice penalty and Daniel Sedin's disallowed goal, if one chose to believe that conspiracies against the Canucks were possible, the evidence was certainly there. I'm not suggesting these were the reasons the Canucks lost the game. The too many men penalty though was as close as you can get to that, simply because the interpretation and explination given by the NHL and it's officials do not mesh with the video of the incident and the player involved.
Kevin Bieksa was rushing to the bench, bleeding from a skate cut to his face when the puck struck his skate. Despite the rule saying it had to be deliberately played, one of the linesman decided to make the call. The Kings score on the ensuing power play in OT and even the series. The NHL says the officials made the correct call, but anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of the game could see that it simply wasn't so. The next game came the one that really sent people over the top however: Daniel Sedin's disallowed goal.
First, here's the goal in question:
and the initial response from the NHL's Mike Murphy, who made the call to overturn the official's decision:
Some people decided that Murphy's past as a member of the Los Angeles Kings organization was suspicious. Is it? No, just another one of those coincidences. But you have to shake your head at just how many of these coincidences there are. Murphy's explanation comes across pretty ridiculous here. Once again, the NHL tells us they're capable of reading minds, and the things Murphy tries to establish as fact do not match what you see with the the video.
So we hear about the DVD sent out to the teams to explain what will and will not be a goal, and from all accounts, it's about as successful at defining the situation as the one the league issued for the changes to the head shot ruling.
So the league says that this rule change came about 2 months ago, before Daniel scored this goal:
So they say they changed the interpretation a couple months ago so we can rest easy because like they always do, the NHL made the right call. So perhaps someone can explain this one to me from 3 weeks ago:
This goal is good, according to the War Room. Now if you want to continue to bash Canucks fans for thinking there's a conspiracy, go ahead. As I've said, I don't believe there is, but the NHL does nothing in this situation but make it possible for the thought to exist. So why did Murphy allow that one and not Daniel's? I'm sorry, what was that? Mike Murphy was tired, and wasn't able to articulate properly? This is an acceptable explination? This wouldn't fly at McDonalds, and yet the fans of the Canucks are told they got it right. And why didn't the NHL let the media and fans know about a rule interpretation change that apparently happened two months ago?
Is there anything about Bettman's words, tone or body language that suggests anything but someone rapidly firing out defensive words and deflecting blame? See, we can read minds too. It's fun. Once again, no conspiracy. But it's an unacceptable response from the head of a multi-billion dollar organization that has continued to treat it's fan base with contempt. Yes, it affected the Canucks directly. But a good portion of us know: it's about the game, stupid!
This year's playoffs, well the whole season has seen more complaints about officiating than I can ever recall. But we keep being told there isn't an issue. And now that the playoffs are here, we're told it's just being magnified by the significance of the games. So is it wrong to think that at the most crucial time, we should have faith in the officiating? There's nothing I have seen in any of the series that suggests to me that the NHL and it's officials have things under control. Take any other series and you will see penalties and non calls alike that simply boggle the mind. The NHL creates the situation, then mismanages it through PR and allows the seeds of doubt to not just be planted, but grow.
The 'C' words we are concerned about is not conspiracy, or even corruption. They're competence and credibility. There is none to be found here, and that my friends is the real outrage. So finally, to all you media types: Lay off. It's so disingenuous of you to attack a fan base with this wide brush. You mock, ridicule and insult, yet who of you has the courage to actually stand up and call the NHL's bluff? You're more willing to join the bandwagon of taunting buffoons than actually investigate the issues? It's as embarrassing as the NHL's blanket dismissals themselves.
Damian Cox, Adrian Dater, Jim Kelley and many others have savaged this team's fans time and time again. To them I say quit dragging your profession into the mud, and be journalists for a change. It's rather hypocritical of you to take anything the NHL says at face value at the best of times, but when so much evidence stares you in the face, have the balls to at least look to see if they have actually got it right. That's not a conspiracy. It's what journalists do.
What now? Well, along with supporting the team, I say we Canucks fans (and anyone who is simply tired of lies and being treated like simpletons by the league and some of the media) just push back. No name calling, no lunacy. Just calm, intelligent discussion to show that we know there's a problem, and as fans we deserve better. Better officiating. Better explanations. And to be shown just a little respect for being intelligent fans of the greatest game on earth. When you make a mistake, own it. Don't make us feel like forces are conspiring against us? As sports fans, the worst feeling in the world is the thought that something outside of the action on the field is going to decide the fate of their team. The NHL, through it's actions and words, enabled by the media, have cultivated that for far too long.
The dearly departed
Can we please rise, remove our hats and have a moment of silence during the 21 jam jar salute for the New Jersey Devils, the first team to depart the 2010 Stanley Cup playoffs. A huge shock? Perhaps not when you look at how the Devils have played, and their playoff history over the last few years. There was a moment of comedy in all this when Ilya Kovalchuk guaranteed a w...
"Yo, I'm really sorry for the New Jersey Devils, and Imma let you finish, but Mark Messier is the better game winning predictor of hockey games or somethin'. And I don't even like hockey, yo. But even I know that. Werd."
Wow. What the hell...? Anyways, the Devils are done, but the Senators decided that not only would they give their fans one more game, but they would also rub a little salt into the perpetual open wound that is the Leafs Nation when Matt Carkner scored in the 3rd overtime to give the Ottawa Senators a 4-3 win over the Pittsburgh Penguins. Pascal Leclaire was brilliant for the Sens, stopping 56 Penguins shots to force a Game 6 Saturday in Ottawa. I am sure once the Sens run is over, Colton Orr will beat Carkner on the golf course too. That's becuase he's had much more time to practice.
The San Jose Sharks seemingly have found a spark, as for once in their series against the Colorado Avalanche the score reflected how badly the Sharks have outplayed their opponents. Logan Couture had a pair for the Sharks as they cruised to a 5-0 victory over Colorado. While history has shown it's best to play it safe when assuming anything about the Sharks, last night certainly suggests that the Avs are in the process of ending their year, having spent it all just to get to the dance. But at least the Sharks were full value for this win, right?
Meanwhile, the Chicago Blackhawks have pulled even with the Nashville Predators in their series as they head back to Chicago for game 5. Can't say I am terribly impressed with Chicago so far, this highly explosive offensive squad has just 1 more goal in 4 games than the Canucks scored Wednesday night against the Kings. Has Niemi answered the critics? Hardly. He has 2 shutouts, but lost both games he surrendered goals in. This one is going to go the distance, and that loss last night was as much about Nashville coming out flat as Chicago responded to the thumping they got on Tuesday.
Tonight we will see if the Canadiens and Sabres can avoid elimination, while the Kings and Canucks, and Coyotes and Red Wings battle for the upper hand in their series. I'd like to wish everyone games without controversy, but I have abandoned all hope of that.
50 comments
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
thank you for the excellent post, it was needed.
Nucks Misconduct's Ambassador, Squid Provider, and Chief Puck Bunny. Now making the NM publishing crew 10000000% less of a sausage party. Also on Twitter.
Tonight we will see if the Capitals and Sabres can avoid elimination
Think you mean Canadiens and Sabres…
oops… Freud would have a field day with that one, eh?
Nucks Misconduct's Grumpy Old Man
WAACH Blog/Podcast- The 38th best Canucks blog on the Interwebs
fixed. and that’s not a conspiracy
Nucks Misconduct's Grumpy Old Man
WAACH Blog/Podcast- The 38th best Canucks blog on the Interwebs
nah, it’s just competence, i believe.
Nucks Misconduct's Ambassador, Squid Provider, and Chief Puck Bunny. Now making the NM publishing crew 10000000% less of a sausage party. Also on Twitter.
ouch…
well played, but ouch.
Nucks Misconduct's Grumpy Old Man
WAACH Blog/Podcast- The 38th best Canucks blog on the Interwebs
sorry, couldn’t resist :P
Nucks Misconduct's Ambassador, Squid Provider, and Chief Puck Bunny. Now making the NM publishing crew 10000000% less of a sausage party. Also on Twitter.
I don’t have time and energy to read nitwits savaging a fan base (unless of course it’s Flames fans, in which case I’ve got all the time in the world and all the vigour of the Energizer Bunny), so I haven’t followed those links.
But usually, when a team and/or its fans inspire widespread derision, doesn’t that correlate with the team starting to get really good? (Witness Chicago. Who by the way I hate.)
And yeah, Bettman and his defensiveness! Hard to take, especially when he gets aggressive about it.
"He'll play, you know he'll play. He'll play on crutches if he has to... and he'll play at Madison Square Garden on Tuesday night! This game is over!"
The officiating in the NHL (and NBA) lacks all kinds of competence and no doubt the NHL top echelon would prefer LA to go further than the ‘Nucks in the playoffs (Mike Murphy’s transparent partisan boosting of his former Kings team was astonishing for someone in his position).
Still and all, the too many men on the ice call against LA late in the last game was a somewhat shocking but happy surprise to me. As blatent as it was, the refs could still have turned a blind eye to it (which I expected them to do) and gotten away with it, and yet they made the right call. Unbelievable!! Keep it up, guys.
Exactly!
It’s not a conspiracy, it’s just pure incompetence. Bettman and co. have shown that they are incompetent at anything other than covering their own asses. The officiating on the ice has suffered mainly because of the line of crap that’s being fed to them from up top. The DVD that was meant to clarify kicked-in goals was laughable.
http://passittobulis.blogspot.com/2010/04/im-not-saying-theres-conspiracy.html
Wouldn't Say That...
Bettman and co. have shown that they are incompetent at anything other than covering their own asses.
Apparently, they have yet to figure out that there are these things called “video recorders”, where we can compare what people say with what actually happened.
I’ll admit that I’m relatively new to hockey. But the rule on whether a goal off the skate should be considered legal or not seems farcical to me. Why have a law that is so open to interpretation? Would it not make more sense to call all goals scored off the skate either legal or illegal with no grey areas in between? I’d be grateful if someone could give me a bit of history on what the ruling on this was in the past – was it always so open to interpretation?
by British Canuck on Apr 23, 2010 11:33 AM PDT reply actions
Well said British Canuck.
But the rule on whether a goal off the skate should be considered legal or not seems farcical to me. Why have a law that is so open to interpretation?
"But yeah…like CC…I harbour no ill will." - VancityDan
by Chuckles Canuckles on Apr 23, 2010 12:26 PM PDT up reply actions
Would it not make more sense to call all goals scored off the skate either legal or illegal with no grey areas in between?
Yes, I think so
by Sean Zandberg on Apr 23, 2010 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions
The rule
is for safety, skates are very sharp so you don’t want guys booting at pucks in the crease with the goalie down there trying to cover ow whatever, however I think unless it truly is a dangerous kicking motion, which that was not, it should be allowed.
Everybody knows
That the world is full of stupid people
Well I got the pistols so I'll keep the Pesos
Yeah that seems fair
Very, very good point.
It’s funny and sad that it takes a new hockey fan (no offense, BC!) to point this out.
Just make a black and white rule (goal or no goal if it goes off a skate) so we don’t get any grey (looking for intent, ‘propeling’, kicking motion, etc.).
In the past any goals going off a skate were disallowed but I don’t think they used instant replay and left it up to the ref.
Poutine & Meatballs
No offense taken cyxj, I’m glad that I’m not talking crazy!
by British Canuck on Apr 23, 2010 11:23 PM PDT up reply actions
Here is my response to Mike Murphy, with a few comments. I am quoting Mr. Murphy in bold letters:
The puck had to be propelled by something, and it was propelled by the skate – if a puck is moving, it means that it is propelled by something. So the puck is following the laws of nature, Mr. Murhpy. Is that a problem? If a puck is deflected by a moving skate, it is obviously propelled by the skate. It’s just the laws of physics. According to you, if the puck is following the laws of physics, the goal will be disallowed. Bravo, Mr. Murhpy!
It wasn’t a deflection, it wasn’t a re-direct – the whole world saw many times over, that it was a deflection, and it was a re-direct. Are you saying that we are all blind?
it was a kick – if it was a kick, can you please show us the kicking motion?
he (Sedin) knew what he was doing – this is the best of all, a true gem, Mr. Murphy. What you are saying, is that you can read Sedin’s mind, and even though we can see no kicking motion, Sedin intended to kick it, in his mind. According to your new interpretation of the rule, the kicking motion is no longer necessary, as long as the player “intends” to kick it.
he twisted his toe – this is called re-direct, Mr. Murphy, the rulebook says that re-directing the puck is allowed. Are you trying to change that, from now on?
Not a distinct kicking motion, but a kicking motion – this statement may be the most appalling. The word – distinct – in the rulebook was chosen for a reason. It means clearly visible. What you are implying, Mr. Murhpy, is that Sedin’s kicking motion cannot be seen by us, so it was an invisible kick, only perceived by you.
Congratulations, Mr. Murhphy, for this truely astonishing explanation, and your supernatural abilities to perceive something that the rest of us don’t.
You have just created a precedent, where it is entirely up to the referee and the reviewer, to allow or disallow a goal, according to whatever his wishes and preferences are. The words in the rulebook mean nothing, since they can be “interpreted” in any way we want. I couldn’t imagine, that the NHL can sink to such a low.
(Even Ron McLaine was shaking his head, while listening to this joke. Murphy’s explanation could even be funny, if it wasn’t so insulting to the intelligence of all those who saw the play).
Los Angeles, CA
by AttilaS on Apr 23, 2010 11:34 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
Great analysis, AttilaS
What you have broken it down to appears to be out and out corruption at one of the highest levels of the NHL.
by Bobby Canuck on Apr 23, 2010 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
This should be sent in a letter to the NHL and broadcasted throughout the internets and television.
also, rec’d
"But yeah…like CC…I harbour no ill will." - VancityDan
by Chuckles Canuckles on Apr 23, 2010 12:28 PM PDT up reply actions
What I find really blatant about Mike Murphy’s explanation of his decision, is that almost nothing that he said made sense. I’ve seen many cases where the league defends its action, and there is some BS hidden in their argument, but I’ve never seen something where the whole thing is BS.
Los Angeles, CA
My favorite part was Bettman defending Murphy’s post-game explanation. Saying it was 1am back in toronto, therefore he was too tired to give a proper detailed explanation. So half an hour before he was razor sharp?
If these guys are too tired to be able to form precise, coherent explanations, how in the hell can we trust them to make game changing reviews of plays?
Shove it in your addendum.
Actually one section of the Rulebook defines
DISTINCT KICKING MOTION:
39.4 Situations Subject to Video Review (iv): A DISTINCT KICKING MOTION is one which, with a pendulum motion, the player propels the puck with his skate into the net.
And it is still there for fans to read, yet the current rulings completely ignore what is written and published on NHL’s own web site.
hey lookie...
(h/t to Shawn Fisher on twitter…)
this apparently is the DVD in question. I would call your attention to example #3, though some are saying #8 needs a look at.
Nucks Misconduct's Grumpy Old Man
WAACH Blog/Podcast- The 38th best Canucks blog on the Interwebs
Great article!!! I wish there was a way for the fans of all professional sports to show they are fed up being treated as second class, when in fact we are the only reason the leagues make money. Short of a massive fan “strike”, not likely gonna happen, we have no recourse whatsoever. The NFL, MLB, NHL and NBA have all shown us that the only thing they care about where we are concerned is the money we spend.
thanks, I think I did a good job of throttling my rage on this one. I didn’t say fuck, not even one time.
Nucks Misconduct's Grumpy Old Man
WAACH Blog/Podcast- The 38th best Canucks blog on the Interwebs
I just watched the NHL’s video and FUUUUUUCCCCCKKKKKK! What a bunch of mental pygmy’s running that joint. Whattya do?
by Sharkbeight on Apr 23, 2010 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions
Such fucking bullshit.
Mike Murphy is a fucking idiot and should be sacked.
"But yeah…like CC…I harbour no ill will." - VancityDan
by Chuckles Canuckles on Apr 23, 2010 12:29 PM PDT reply actions
As far as I’m concerned about the disallowed goal, it was jam on the brakes or Daniel would have gotten a “goaltender interference” penalty for not avoiding Quick.
Talk about no-win!
Right. It is hard to even imagine a kick with a snow-shower.
When you kick, you are moving your feet on purpose towards the direction of your kick. In Daniel’s case, he is sliding towards the goalie, and he is trying to stop himself from running him over.
Has anybody ever seen a kick that resulted in a show-shower? It would be physically impossible to do it.
Los Angeles, CA
dammit
another conspiracy…
Nucks Misconduct's Grumpy Old Man
WAACH Blog/Podcast- The 38th best Canucks blog on the Interwebs
It’s been reported that it was Colin Campbell, and not Murphy, who had the final say in this. So you know what I think happened? Campbell, in all his retarded, shitheaded stupidity, decided to call this a no goal just for shits and giggles, and let Murphy take the fall and forced him to try and explain it. And Murphy, not being the brightest bulb in the box, tries to rationalize it and comes up with about 10 nonsensical explanations, all of which are complete BS and are more distractors then anything. Then the ensuing media fallout. Bettman then panics and comes up with another 10 retarded excuses as to why it was right and why Murphy couldn’t give a single legitimate justification to the call. So he comes up with “Murphy was tired.” Seriously, that was the best he could come up with. And he thought it was ingenious, too.
See? I’m like Ron MacLean on steroids. I can read minds and put words in their mouthes with incredible accuracy.
Follow me on Twitter: www.twitter.com/andrew_canucks
by Canuckk on Apr 23, 2010 2:07 PM PDT via mobile reply actions
(the above was a farce and does not necessarily reflect my opinion on the matter. However, the original fact about Campbell is true, I believe)
Follow me on Twitter: www.twitter.com/andrew_canucks
by Canuckk on Apr 23, 2010 2:11 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I had heard that, but I actually removed a reference to it before publishing the article because I couldn’t find the link. I appreciate it being mentioned though, because it raises such an interesting question: why is it easier to believe that Canucks fans are crazy conspiracy nuts when the NHL can’t keep their story straight?
Nucks Misconduct's Grumpy Old Man
WAACH Blog/Podcast- The 38th best Canucks blog on the Interwebs
Great post…I’m contemplating a similar post here as a way of (1)introducing myself to the NM community, and (2)getting some of my own pet peeves off my chest.
Cool
Welcome to the community.
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
by Yankee Canuck on Apr 23, 2010 4:24 PM PDT up reply actions
wow
So many awesome comments, thank you all. I am pretty proud of this one.
Kind of funny the difference a couple weeks make. Nice to see the people with pitchforks and torches aren’t hanging outside anymore lol…
Nucks Misconduct's Grumpy Old Man
WAACH Blog/Podcast- The 38th best Canucks blog on the Interwebs
Just say that you doubt the Canucks are going to take this series. They’ll come out in hordes!
by Sean Zandberg on Apr 23, 2010 5:31 PM PDT up reply actions
yeah… because I am dumb enough to invite another hockey fatwa on my head…
:)
Nucks Misconduct's Grumpy Old Man
WAACH Blog/Podcast- The 38th best Canucks blog on the Interwebs
Well, you just related the frustration we all have with the portrayal.
Well done. I have to admit that ( full disclosure )…in my younger days, I did succumb to the Dark Side and mutter about that ivory tower.
But, quite frankly, I doubt the ability of some in that tower to have the requisite intelligence to pull it off.
I, for one, will stand by you if the hordes come with their torches…
;-)
Samuelsson carries a Swedish passport, but Henrik thinks of his fellow countryman as quasi-Canadian. He plays with an edge and has lots to say to opponents on the ice.
"People in here love him," Henrik said. "He's almost Canadian with the way he likes to chirp and go back and forth." B. Ziemer/Van. Sun 4/22/10
WAACH’s a dude. He pulls no punches. I back him too
by Sean Zandberg on Apr 23, 2010 6:36 PM PDT up reply actions
First of all it was painful to listen to Murphy stammer through his attempts to justify that call.
Second of all, the rule with kicking is for safety, so you don’t see things like what happened to Ward (or worse, Malarchuk). But the rule as currently written, is too ambiguous and creates too many problems. The way I’d write it if I were in charge would be to say that the goal is allowed as long as the skate remains on the ice.
I have to go. But if I find one single dog hair when I get back, I'll rub... sand... in your dead little eyes. I also need you to buy sand. I don't know if they grade it, but... coarse.
by Steckel Me Elmo on Apr 23, 2010 7:17 PM PDT reply actions

by 






















