Two great high school hockey stories this month.
The first is Hingham (Massachusetts) High School's recent Super 8 Championship, a 1-0 thriller over Catholic Memorial before a huge crowd at the Boston Garden. Always great to see a public high school beat a Catholic Conference team in the final. Only the second time a public high school has won this championship. A great memorial and tribute to Garrett Reagan, the former Hingham coach for 26 years who built this fine program and passed away suddenly in 2008. Kudo's to the coaches and players at Hingham High!
The second high school hockey story is about a game that was never played. In 1989 two New Jersey teams were slated to play in the State Final Hockey Championship - The Delbarton School versus St. Joseph Regional High School. Ranked 1 and 2 respectively, anticipation was high as the teams had not faced each other during the course of the season. Both teams had lots of talent, many went on and had great college careers, in fact one player, Ken Blum, was drafted by the Minnesota North Stars. During the course of the 1989 season both squads frequently played in front of capacity crowds. Unfortunately, the excitement came to a screeching halt when an outbreak of measles at Delbarton forced the administration to cancel the game. It was never played.
For years this decision weighed heavily on players who have since wondered whether they could have been champions. But here's the good news. On April 3, 34 of the original 42 players and both coaches have agreed to play the game. After 20 years, players are coming from Massachusetts, Maine, California, Texas, Pennsylvania and Minnesota to play the game. In fact, these guys ranging in age from 38-40, have been practicing at 5 AM with their old coaches then going to work. The NHL has donated jersey for both teams and partial proceeds from the game go to Hockey Fights Cancer.
For additional details check out the following article at:
http://www.maxpreps.com/news/7uxKQDLcEd-UswAcxJTdpg/greatest-hockey-game-never-played-frozen-in-new-jersey.htm
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
The Time For No-Touch Icing Has Arrived
When will the NHL implement no-touch icing? Earlier this week we had yet another instance of injury related to the current icing rule. Check out the video below where Darcy Tucker of the Colorado Avalanche is pursuing the puck against Matt Greene of the LA Kings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mv43KuZ-IqY
Fortunately Greene was able to continue playing but he was really lucky.
Icing occurs when a player shoots the puck across at least two red lines, the opposing team's goal line being the last. When icing is called, the officials stop play. Play is resumed with a face-off in the defending zone of the team that committed the infraction. In international competitions, the East Coast Hockey League (ECHL), and the Central Hockey League (CHL), play is stopped for icing once the puck crosses the goal line. This is called automatic or no-touch icing. In the NHL and AHL, however, a player on the opposing team other than the goalie must touch the puck to cause a stoppage in play.
The NHL, in its infinite wisdom, will sit on this until a really serious injury occurs. For once I ask the NHL to be proactive and preemptive. General Managers also have some ownership on this one - make a move for no-touch icing to be implemented next season.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mv43KuZ-IqY
Fortunately Greene was able to continue playing but he was really lucky.
Icing occurs when a player shoots the puck across at least two red lines, the opposing team's goal line being the last. When icing is called, the officials stop play. Play is resumed with a face-off in the defending zone of the team that committed the infraction. In international competitions, the East Coast Hockey League (ECHL), and the Central Hockey League (CHL), play is stopped for icing once the puck crosses the goal line. This is called automatic or no-touch icing. In the NHL and AHL, however, a player on the opposing team other than the goalie must touch the puck to cause a stoppage in play.
There are two solid reasons I believe no-touch icing should be implemented.
First, serious injury will be prevented. Look at some of the major injuries over that past few years due to an icing-related chase for the puck. Minnesota's Kurt Foster broke his leg, Calgary's Al MacInnis dislocated his hip, Dallas' Mark Tinordi broke his femur, Edmonton's Marty Reasoner damaged his knee and foot, the former San Jose Shark (and current Bruin) Marco Sturm dislocated his ankle and broke his leg and Florida's Mike Wilson dislocated his shoulder and broke his arm. You may also remember former first rounder Pat Peake of the Washington Capitals. Peake's career ended in a sprint for the puck with Pittsburgh's J.J. Daigneault. His heel shattered in 12 places - he was done at age 24.
Second, the tempo of the game will be quicker. The average duration of a game will decrease and will appeal to hockey's fan base.
Second, the tempo of the game will be quicker. The average duration of a game will decrease and will appeal to hockey's fan base.
The NHL, in its infinite wisdom, will sit on this until a really serious injury occurs. For once I ask the NHL to be proactive and preemptive. General Managers also have some ownership on this one - make a move for no-touch icing to be implemented next season.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Colin Campbell and Player Safety
Most of us are still pondering the rationale of Colin Campbell's decision not to suspend Matt Cooke for his blind-sided shoulder to the head of Boston's Marc Savard. I view Campbell's behavior as blatant incompetence.
Campbell's explanation for not suspending Cooke was because the check was identical to the hit Mike Richards dealt to David Booth. In Campbell's view, Richards' hit did not draw a suspension therefore, to be consistent, neither should Cooke's.
Really Mr. Campbell? Have you had one too many Boone Island Ales? I vehemently disagree with your decision-making. Before looking at the video, here's a refresher on Rule 21.1 from this year's NHL Rulebook, "A match penalty shall be imposed on any player or goalkeeper who deliberately attempts to injure an opponent in any manner. A match penalty shall be imposed on a player or goalkeeper who deliberately injures an opponent in any manner."
What is unclear about this rule? Now take a close look again at the hit on David Booth and see if you can apply the rule.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOsp_Spcdwg
Richards clearly brings his shoulder to the head. You will notice upon impact Richards actually thrusts upward to make full impact on the head. Clearly, this was an intent to injure. Any one of the four referees on the ice should have called this penalty. They opted not to and the decision came to your office for review and possible supplemental action. You too decided this was not an attempt to injure and recommended no suspension.
Last week you reviewed the hit delivered by Matt Cooke. Remember Rule 21.1, now again take a closer look at the Cooke hit on Savard below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_F7LEZ78_o
Clearly a head-shot and unquestionably an intent to injure. Because of the similarities and precedence set with the Richards incident you opted for no suspension.
Mr. Campbell, your decision-making on Matt Cooke demonstrates incredibly poor judgment and really questionable competence. I make this statement for several reasons:
1) You ignored Matt Cooke's track record - he is a repeat offender. He was suspended earlier this season for his head shots on both Artem Animisimov in November 2009 and for his check on Scott Walker in January 2009. He was recently accused of biting Asham. Two years ago when he played for the Washington Capitals I saw him come across the neutral zone and clobber Vincent Lecavalier. He destroyed Lecavalier's shoulder which ended his season. I was at the game, Cooke blind-sided Lecavalier - clearly an attempt to injure. In fact, all the above cited incidences are intent to injure infractions. Do you see the trend starting to develop Mr. Campbell?
2) You are confused between incidental and intentional contact. I hear all the time hockey is such a fast game and there are numerous instances where incidental contact takes place. Because you did not suspend Cooke perhaps you made the decision his contact was incidental. Just look closer at the videos. Cooke knows Savard is vulnerable and is applying a blind-sided hit to the head, with the intent of applying maximum impact with intent to injure.
3) Two wrongs do not make it right. You got the Richards incident wrong and you got the Cooke incident wrong as well. You elected to save face and not admit a mistake. Your saving face was a higher priority than the integrity and safety of the game.
4) Rare player outrage. Credible players across the league such as Vincent Lecavalier, Martin St. Louis and Mark Recchi are surprised at your decision. Even one of Cooke's teammates, Bill Guerin, said there should have been disciplinary action taken.
5) You are inconsistent in your rulings. Cooke suspensions were meted out when he checked Animisimov and Walker. In the case of Animisimov, the elbow was flagrant; less so with Savard, but the intent to injure was still there. In both Richard's and Cooke's cases you should have applied the intent to injure rule. You would then have come to the conclusion to suspend both of them.
6) You are incapable of interpreting the rules. Rule 21.1, mentioned above is applicable here. Either you do not understand it or, in the interest of self-preservation, you elected not to apply it.
Your poor decisions imperil player safety. You ought to tune into the Bruins versus Penguins game on March 18. With Matt Cooke still playing, you have the makings of another Todd Bertuzzi-Steve Moore scenario.
Campbell's explanation for not suspending Cooke was because the check was identical to the hit Mike Richards dealt to David Booth. In Campbell's view, Richards' hit did not draw a suspension therefore, to be consistent, neither should Cooke's.
Really Mr. Campbell? Have you had one too many Boone Island Ales? I vehemently disagree with your decision-making. Before looking at the video, here's a refresher on Rule 21.1 from this year's NHL Rulebook, "A match penalty shall be imposed on any player or goalkeeper who deliberately attempts to injure an opponent in any manner. A match penalty shall be imposed on a player or goalkeeper who deliberately injures an opponent in any manner."
What is unclear about this rule? Now take a close look again at the hit on David Booth and see if you can apply the rule.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOsp_Spcdwg
Richards clearly brings his shoulder to the head. You will notice upon impact Richards actually thrusts upward to make full impact on the head. Clearly, this was an intent to injure. Any one of the four referees on the ice should have called this penalty. They opted not to and the decision came to your office for review and possible supplemental action. You too decided this was not an attempt to injure and recommended no suspension.
Last week you reviewed the hit delivered by Matt Cooke. Remember Rule 21.1, now again take a closer look at the Cooke hit on Savard below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_F7LEZ78_o
Clearly a head-shot and unquestionably an intent to injure. Because of the similarities and precedence set with the Richards incident you opted for no suspension.
Mr. Campbell, your decision-making on Matt Cooke demonstrates incredibly poor judgment and really questionable competence. I make this statement for several reasons:
1) You ignored Matt Cooke's track record - he is a repeat offender. He was suspended earlier this season for his head shots on both Artem Animisimov in November 2009 and for his check on Scott Walker in January 2009. He was recently accused of biting Asham. Two years ago when he played for the Washington Capitals I saw him come across the neutral zone and clobber Vincent Lecavalier. He destroyed Lecavalier's shoulder which ended his season. I was at the game, Cooke blind-sided Lecavalier - clearly an attempt to injure. In fact, all the above cited incidences are intent to injure infractions. Do you see the trend starting to develop Mr. Campbell?
2) You are confused between incidental and intentional contact. I hear all the time hockey is such a fast game and there are numerous instances where incidental contact takes place. Because you did not suspend Cooke perhaps you made the decision his contact was incidental. Just look closer at the videos. Cooke knows Savard is vulnerable and is applying a blind-sided hit to the head, with the intent of applying maximum impact with intent to injure.
3) Two wrongs do not make it right. You got the Richards incident wrong and you got the Cooke incident wrong as well. You elected to save face and not admit a mistake. Your saving face was a higher priority than the integrity and safety of the game.
4) Rare player outrage. Credible players across the league such as Vincent Lecavalier, Martin St. Louis and Mark Recchi are surprised at your decision. Even one of Cooke's teammates, Bill Guerin, said there should have been disciplinary action taken.
5) You are inconsistent in your rulings. Cooke suspensions were meted out when he checked Animisimov and Walker. In the case of Animisimov, the elbow was flagrant; less so with Savard, but the intent to injure was still there. In both Richard's and Cooke's cases you should have applied the intent to injure rule. You would then have come to the conclusion to suspend both of them.
6) You are incapable of interpreting the rules. Rule 21.1, mentioned above is applicable here. Either you do not understand it or, in the interest of self-preservation, you elected not to apply it.
Your poor decisions imperil player safety. You ought to tune into the Bruins versus Penguins game on March 18. With Matt Cooke still playing, you have the makings of another Todd Bertuzzi-Steve Moore scenario.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Michael Wilbon: Hockey Sage
Did you read Michael Wilbon's article about Alex Ovechkin in the March 2, 2010 edition of the Washington Post? You can check it out at the following link:
http://views.washingtonpost.com/world-wide-wilbon/wilbon/2010/03/crosby_miles_ahead_of_ovechkin.html
I'm admittedly not a big Wilbon fan and it is always a little scary when he writes about hockey. But this article, for the most part, was right on. Wilbon suggests Cap fans may want to stop with the argument Ovechkin is better. I agree, Crosby has won a Stanley Cup and an Olympic Gold medal; on both occasions he went through Ovechkin to attain them.
Wilbon also points out a bigger concern with regard to Ovechkin's behavior in Vancouver. In one incidence he shoved a female fan's camera and sustained bruises as a result. The second incidence occured when he broke the camera of a man asking for an interview. Wilbon suggests somebody needs to get Ovechkin under control - I couldn't agree more. Ovechkin's behavior at the Olympics is reprehensible and symptomatic of future issues if not checked. I also applaud Wilbon for surfacing this behavior and telling the Caps, they too, should be concerned.
I like the way the Pittsburgh Penguins handle their younger players. What better situation for Sidney Crosby than to live with Mario Lemieux and his family. Crosby has become a true ambassador of the game under Lemieux's tutelage. Moving forward, the Caps may want to take a chapter from the Penguin's book. The Pens learned this lesson the hard way with Pierre Larouche in the mid-70's.
While I agree with most everything in the above article, which really surprises me, Wilbon is off on one point. He suggests if Ovechkin were black, the media would be making a bigger deal of the two Ovechkin incidences. Michael, not true, Ovechkin knocked a camera out of someone's hands he didn't show up at work with four guns as did Gilbert Arenas - big difference. There is no race issue here!
http://views.washingtonpost.com/world-wide-wilbon/wilbon/2010/03/crosby_miles_ahead_of_ovechkin.html
I'm admittedly not a big Wilbon fan and it is always a little scary when he writes about hockey. But this article, for the most part, was right on. Wilbon suggests Cap fans may want to stop with the argument Ovechkin is better. I agree, Crosby has won a Stanley Cup and an Olympic Gold medal; on both occasions he went through Ovechkin to attain them.
Wilbon also points out a bigger concern with regard to Ovechkin's behavior in Vancouver. In one incidence he shoved a female fan's camera and sustained bruises as a result. The second incidence occured when he broke the camera of a man asking for an interview. Wilbon suggests somebody needs to get Ovechkin under control - I couldn't agree more. Ovechkin's behavior at the Olympics is reprehensible and symptomatic of future issues if not checked. I also applaud Wilbon for surfacing this behavior and telling the Caps, they too, should be concerned.
I like the way the Pittsburgh Penguins handle their younger players. What better situation for Sidney Crosby than to live with Mario Lemieux and his family. Crosby has become a true ambassador of the game under Lemieux's tutelage. Moving forward, the Caps may want to take a chapter from the Penguin's book. The Pens learned this lesson the hard way with Pierre Larouche in the mid-70's.
While I agree with most everything in the above article, which really surprises me, Wilbon is off on one point. He suggests if Ovechkin were black, the media would be making a bigger deal of the two Ovechkin incidences. Michael, not true, Ovechkin knocked a camera out of someone's hands he didn't show up at work with four guns as did Gilbert Arenas - big difference. There is no race issue here!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)