We got shelled. 8-1. Worst loss of the year. Our goaltender has been averaging under 2 goals against. But we gave him no support. We had tons of scoring chances, but shot badly over and over and over again. We had bad calls go against us. First coincidental minors when one of their guys punched our guy in the face. Huh!?! Then, when our guy couldn't get the penalty box door open, they gave him 2 more for unsportsmanlike conduct. Seriously. I played my worst game of the year. I couldn't get my legs going, was slow, lazy, shot badly, and didn't really play defense. We had eight skaters and never found any rhythm. We hung our goaltender out to dry again, and again, and again, and again . . . (well, eight times, at least). Basically, we sucked. And it was awesome. Seriously.
I had an all-time bad day yesterday. I woke up on the wrong side of the bed. Basically anything the wife or child said annoyed me (including the potty training "mistake" all over the couch). It was pouring rain outside. I got salary information at work (gee, I wonder where the stress came from?). My employer screwed me. I was pissed. I ate too much. Thought too much about being fat. Did drudge work all day. Stayed pissed at my employer. Stayed at work too late. Got home and spent 45 minutes bitching to my wife about how upset I was with my employer (I'm sure she loved that -- how much fun is it to listen to someone complain for 45 minutes?). Then, packed up my gear to go play a game that started after 10. Tired, angry, surly.
Sweet hockey, ease the pain.
So I played badly. So my team played badly. Our once 10-1 team has lost four of five, including two to teams with 5 or fewer wins. And I had a great time. I spent 2 hours thinking about hockey, not work or any other petty annoying things. We had beer in the parking lot at midnight, and I wasn't mad any more. Got in the car to drive home and Bob Seger sang, "Roll, roll me away, won't you roll me away, tonight . . . "
Got home with a smile on my face. Five hours of sleep, but the wife and child didn't annoy me at all this morning. At work this morning I'm still not thrilled about the money, but the fire that consumed me yesterday is gone. It's a beautiful sunny day, and the weekend starts in eight hours.
I love hockey.
Slapshot? It's a Movie, Guys. You Know, Fiction.
On Tuesday Mickey Meyer, goaltender for the University of Southern California's ACHA club hockey team mooned the crowd at BYU. Or, to be specific, "rode his stick like a horse, dropped his bulky pants, mooned the crowd and slapped his buttocks during a game against BYU, police said." (link)
Apparently he was upset with some bad calls. Um, this isn't Slapshot, Mickey. But nice work encouraging the use of the alternate name for USC, the "University of Spoiled Children." For his trouble he received a game misconduct and a citation for misdemeanor indecency. Note to Mickey, Utah is the wrong place to pull this kind of stunt . . .
Corporatization, Part II
A friend just sent me this link, from an Oakland rag, published on the 14th:
Sharks in Oakland?
First, allow me to pat myself on the back for having this almost 2 weeks earlier (Link). Ok, ego massaged, time to move on.
I've spoken with some people involved in the San Jose Sharks organization, and I'm actually pleased with the direction I think they will go (although that's not to say their competitor might not do just as well). The change in fees that I suggested in my first post is a reality with the Sharks, but it will depend on the size of the team. Now, the fees per player are $515 in Oakland ("OIC"), which is supposed to generate in the neighborhood of $7200-$7500 per team, assuming 14-15 paying players. The problem is OIC allows teams to play with fewer than that. The average size, according to Iceoplex (current management, on their way out no matter what), is currently about 10 paying players. That means plenty of ice time, but it also means plenty of games shorthanded when someone can't make it . . . or picking up "subs" (aka ringers).
Under the Sharks plan, because the team will have to pay, it will behoove teams to have closer to 14 or 15 players. In that scenario, players will only pay another $50 bucks or so more over the $515 ($557 if you have 14 and pay ontime which qualifies you for a team discount of $500 or so). And, with the likely 4 extra games, we will actually end up paying less per game than we do now. Now, there is a hidden fee: the Sharks also require memebership in USA Hockey (because it comes with catastrophic medical insurance), which is another $32 per year (or close to that). My team started the year with 14 players this year, and will likely do so again next year. So our guys will pay a smidgen more, but less per game. I'm ok with that.
I'm especially ok with that because a few years back the league told me that my guys had to pay extra because we only had 12 paying skaters. We paid. Now I learn that the average team has 10 paying skaters (according to Iceoplex's report to the Oakland City Council), and they are paying the $515, not anything more. I'm just a little upset that we paid more (as I'm sure will my teammates be when they read this).
What will likely happen under the Sharks scenario, because guys won't want to pay much more than the $560 and the Sharks won't find an additional 250 skaters to fill out the current teams, is the number of teams playing at OIC will drop. That will mean, among other things, fewer "subs." And actually, the Sharks organization polices that as well. They have much more active control over rosters by rink officials, meaning you play with the guys on your team, not the extra "sub" that will help you win a game . . . (query how this will work for goaltending subs as the need arises -- something for another time). More important than fewer "subs," is fewer games against teams with only 2 or 3 guys on the bench, meaning they are spent by the 3rd period, and the games lose their competitiveness. I'm ok with that.
In addition, the Sharks organization will use Hockey Officials of Northern California (HONC -- isn't that awesome!) to call the games, which probably means a more consistent calling of USA hockey rules, something I'm in favor of. It also means we won't have the same refs over and over again, with Mad Eric telling me he doesn't like my team.
Finally, in Fremont and San Jose, the Sharks run very clean facilities. That would be a change for Oakland. No more hand lacerations from loose bolts in the boards (that happened a couple of weeks ago), no more ponds of water where the cooling unit has broken ("just try to avoid that spot on the ice tonight, ok boys?"), and perhaps showers that work in all the locker rooms (instead of just some).
Now, would the Sharks' competitors do some of these same things? Probably. And if so, good on 'em -- I'm not picking sides in the fight going on at City Hall. All I'm saying is I think the Sharks organization would upgrade the quality of hockey in Oakland. My initial reaction was fear at the increase in costs. But having spoken with officials at the Sharks organization and looking into how they run things elsewhere, now I'm looking forward to the change.
Long story short: the headline is scary, but the devil's in the details . . . and the details aren't so bad.
Sharks in Oakland?
First, allow me to pat myself on the back for having this almost 2 weeks earlier (Link). Ok, ego massaged, time to move on.
I've spoken with some people involved in the San Jose Sharks organization, and I'm actually pleased with the direction I think they will go (although that's not to say their competitor might not do just as well). The change in fees that I suggested in my first post is a reality with the Sharks, but it will depend on the size of the team. Now, the fees per player are $515 in Oakland ("OIC"), which is supposed to generate in the neighborhood of $7200-$7500 per team, assuming 14-15 paying players. The problem is OIC allows teams to play with fewer than that. The average size, according to Iceoplex (current management, on their way out no matter what), is currently about 10 paying players. That means plenty of ice time, but it also means plenty of games shorthanded when someone can't make it . . . or picking up "subs" (aka ringers).
Under the Sharks plan, because the team will have to pay, it will behoove teams to have closer to 14 or 15 players. In that scenario, players will only pay another $50 bucks or so more over the $515 ($557 if you have 14 and pay ontime which qualifies you for a team discount of $500 or so). And, with the likely 4 extra games, we will actually end up paying less per game than we do now. Now, there is a hidden fee: the Sharks also require memebership in USA Hockey (because it comes with catastrophic medical insurance), which is another $32 per year (or close to that). My team started the year with 14 players this year, and will likely do so again next year. So our guys will pay a smidgen more, but less per game. I'm ok with that.
I'm especially ok with that because a few years back the league told me that my guys had to pay extra because we only had 12 paying skaters. We paid. Now I learn that the average team has 10 paying skaters (according to Iceoplex's report to the Oakland City Council), and they are paying the $515, not anything more. I'm just a little upset that we paid more (as I'm sure will my teammates be when they read this).
What will likely happen under the Sharks scenario, because guys won't want to pay much more than the $560 and the Sharks won't find an additional 250 skaters to fill out the current teams, is the number of teams playing at OIC will drop. That will mean, among other things, fewer "subs." And actually, the Sharks organization polices that as well. They have much more active control over rosters by rink officials, meaning you play with the guys on your team, not the extra "sub" that will help you win a game . . . (query how this will work for goaltending subs as the need arises -- something for another time). More important than fewer "subs," is fewer games against teams with only 2 or 3 guys on the bench, meaning they are spent by the 3rd period, and the games lose their competitiveness. I'm ok with that.
In addition, the Sharks organization will use Hockey Officials of Northern California (HONC -- isn't that awesome!) to call the games, which probably means a more consistent calling of USA hockey rules, something I'm in favor of. It also means we won't have the same refs over and over again, with Mad Eric telling me he doesn't like my team.
Finally, in Fremont and San Jose, the Sharks run very clean facilities. That would be a change for Oakland. No more hand lacerations from loose bolts in the boards (that happened a couple of weeks ago), no more ponds of water where the cooling unit has broken ("just try to avoid that spot on the ice tonight, ok boys?"), and perhaps showers that work in all the locker rooms (instead of just some).
Now, would the Sharks' competitors do some of these same things? Probably. And if so, good on 'em -- I'm not picking sides in the fight going on at City Hall. All I'm saying is I think the Sharks organization would upgrade the quality of hockey in Oakland. My initial reaction was fear at the increase in costs. But having spoken with officials at the Sharks organization and looking into how they run things elsewhere, now I'm looking forward to the change.
Long story short: the headline is scary, but the devil's in the details . . . and the details aren't so bad.
Canadians LOVE Hockey (aka Why I love living in San Francisco)
I've gotten this from a couple of friends recently -- it obviously needs some sharing: how to do a backyard right (if you live somewhere cold -- did I mention it was in the 70s and sunny all weekend in San Francisco?)
Valentine's Day
Ladies (so much of the readership, I know),
This is why men don't like Valentine's Day . . .
I had a game on February 13. The night before, my wife asks, "if your game were on Valentine's Day, would you play?" So, I thought about it for a second . . .
My wife is a firm believer that Valentine's Day is a made up, BS holiday sold by Hallmark as a boost to their revenue. I wholeheartedly agree. But I'm not stupid.
"No, I wouldn't play."
"Good. Valentine's Day is stupid, and we never do much special for it, but I'd be pissed if you went to play hockey."
There you have it. Yet another reason to dislike Valentine's Day.
To be fair, everyone enjoys getting a little extra positive attention, and I guess that's the best thing to do on Valentine's Day for the wife/girlfriend (casual hook-up?). And in the future, if I have a game on Valentine's Day, I'll make sure it's prominently on the calendar, but say that I'm not planning on going. Maybe my wife will remember that she doesn't think much more of Valentine's Day than I do, and she'll tell me to go . . . maybe.
The Fans
Talking with a colleague the other day, and she said her ideal job would be a professional athlete because of the thrill of all those people in the stands cheering for her. (Don't know if she's seen, say, the WNBA ratings lately . . .)
We have our fans -- a handful at a time. The odd girlfriend or wife. Parents in town. Some friends who think it's unique that they have a buddy playing ice hockey in Oakland, CA (I'm guessing you don't get a lot of those out the Minnesota way).
The wives often come early in the marriage (same for girlfriends). Then kids come along, or they just get sick of sitting on cold metal benches, watching slow hockey by over-the-hill 30+ year-olds,
then hanging out in the parking lot in the ghetto with a bunch of hockey-jocks drinking beer. After a few years, every once in a while they still come make a cameo. Mine would come and bring my daughter if one of our games would start before 7:30 one of these days (we used to get some as early as 5 on some Sundays -- hasn't happened in a while). Small kids, of course, play a big role in this drop in spousal attendence. But when they get older, they start to want to see dad out there skating, plus get a little ride on the ice after the game. That's always good for some kicks.
It is fun to have fans . . . even when there are fewer than the WNBA has.
We have our fans -- a handful at a time. The odd girlfriend or wife. Parents in town. Some friends who think it's unique that they have a buddy playing ice hockey in Oakland, CA (I'm guessing you don't get a lot of those out the Minnesota way).
The wives often come early in the marriage (same for girlfriends). Then kids come along, or they just get sick of sitting on cold metal benches, watching slow hockey by over-the-hill 30+ year-olds,
then hanging out in the parking lot in the ghetto with a bunch of hockey-jocks drinking beer. After a few years, every once in a while they still come make a cameo. Mine would come and bring my daughter if one of our games would start before 7:30 one of these days (we used to get some as early as 5 on some Sundays -- hasn't happened in a while). Small kids, of course, play a big role in this drop in spousal attendence. But when they get older, they start to want to see dad out there skating, plus get a little ride on the ice after the game. That's always good for some kicks.
It is fun to have fans . . . even when there are fewer than the WNBA has.
Shoulder Pads?
Like most adult-rec leagues, ours is "non-checking." Plenty of contact, but nothing compared to a full-bore checking league. Several years ago I bought a new pair of Jofa shoulder pads. Nice bulkly ones. And I promply went out and got clobbered in the slot, landing shoulder first. I spent the next month praising the new purchase that had saved me.
About 2 months ago, unbeknownst to me, my shoulder pads fell out of my bag on the way through the rink lobby. I realized I didn't have them in the locker room, went back out and couldn't find them, so I assumed I must have accidentally left them at home (better that than say a shinguard and an elbow pad . . . which happened to one of our guys a couple of games ago). So I figured what the hell, I'll play without them. And I loved it. I felt lighter, faster, better. (As I left that night, my pads were sitting on the counter at the entrance.)
A handful of guys go without shoulder pads in our league, and ever since that first night a while back, I've been one of them. I really like it. In addition to feeling like I skate better, I don't lose as much fluid during the game. What's not to like? I guess the fact that after two weeks ago when I knocked open a door during the game, I'm still looking at nasty bruises on my shoulder where I hit it. And at any moment I could get drilled like I was four years ago, landing shoulder first.
Do I put them back on?
Do I go out and get some old-school Gretzky style pads?
This is my dilemma.
About 2 months ago, unbeknownst to me, my shoulder pads fell out of my bag on the way through the rink lobby. I realized I didn't have them in the locker room, went back out and couldn't find them, so I assumed I must have accidentally left them at home (better that than say a shinguard and an elbow pad . . . which happened to one of our guys a couple of games ago). So I figured what the hell, I'll play without them. And I loved it. I felt lighter, faster, better. (As I left that night, my pads were sitting on the counter at the entrance.)
A handful of guys go without shoulder pads in our league, and ever since that first night a while back, I've been one of them. I really like it. In addition to feeling like I skate better, I don't lose as much fluid during the game. What's not to like? I guess the fact that after two weeks ago when I knocked open a door during the game, I'm still looking at nasty bruises on my shoulder where I hit it. And at any moment I could get drilled like I was four years ago, landing shoulder first.
Complicating this, when the rink changes management, they will implement USA Hockey's equipment requirements, which include shoulder pads . . . think they will notice if I'm not wearing them?
So, do I keep skating without them? (I survived the Baby Huey game/incident just fine.)Do I put them back on?
Do I go out and get some old-school Gretzky style pads?
This is my dilemma.
When Did This Guy Decide He Needed To Play Hockey?
I've been in two actual fights in hockey in my life. Plenty of shoving here and there, but only two real fights. The first, I was 16, playing roller hockey. 17 years later, my second, last night. With Baby Huey. Well, three of my teammates and I . . . after the game.We had a comfortable 7-2 lead. The refs had whistled the other team for 10 penalties (in our league that's enough to lose a point in the standings), and frankly there could have been several more. We had five of our own, and also could have had a couple more. Frustrated, they started losing their cool, accusing us of diving (we weren't), and generally mouthing off. Not ones to back down, we returned our own verbal jabs. After a verbal exchange, with 3:30 remaining, the refs decided to call the game (which, incidentally, isn't allowed under USA Hockey).
Baby Huey, here, was pissed. First he let the refs have it on the ice with a verbal assault that made my petty exchange with a ref in a hallway look like a disney training film. Then, he followed our team off the ice, jabbering at us the whole way about how we were diving. Naturally, we *calmly* explained that we weren't, and that he should just worry about learning to play hockey.
The father of a two-year old, I should know better. People are genetically programmed, and Baby Huey is no different. His older brother was permanently thrown from the league two years ago when, after receiving a game misconduct, he tried to hit the referee with a slapshot. Baby Huey has the same genetic code.
After following us towards our locker room, mouthing off the whole time, he turned to go to his locker room, and gave our goaltender a hard shove. Not too surprisingly one of our bigger defenseman jumped in and it was on.
Now, most of our team was already in the locker room, and all of his team was, too. It was him, and four of us. Not the brightest time for him to start a fight, but as I say, genetic programming. The other genetic component is Huey is big . . . real big. I hover around 2 bills, and our defenseman that jumped in is bigger than me by a decent margin, and both of us are small compared to Huey. I'm downright puny.
So, a couple of us jump in to break it up, the rink attendant jumps in, and everyone is subdued, and split up . . . when Huey comes at us again. Same drill, broken up, walking away, Huey comes at us a third time. This time, it's just him, our big D, and the rink attendant trying to stop it. So I grab Huey's sweater just to pull him off our guy. Between the rink attendent and I, we get him off our D (who was doing fine, by the way). He turns to walk away, sees my sweater and it was like a bull seeing red -- instantly he jumps me. So I cover up, two rink attendents jump in, and after he gets a couple of shots in, it's over.
Sigh. Why do people like Baby Huey think they need to play hockey?
"That Rule Doesn't Apply Here"
The refs did a pretty decent job last night. They let some obvious interference go, and they missed a few calls here and there (for instance, the allowed me to drill a guy along the boards, then promptly whistled him for roughing when he retaliated 10 seconds later). Twice they simply didn't know the rule.
First, as discussed after last week's game, when the refs assess a checking from behind minor penalty, a misconduct penalty is required. Last night, they called checking from behind against the other team, but no misconduct. The ref who made the call told me it's not the rule ( but see Rule 607(a): "A minor plus a misconduct penalty, or a major plus a game misconduct penalty, shall be imposed on any player who body checks or pushes an opponent from behind.") The second ref instead of disagreeing with me says, "that rule doesn't apply here." "USA Hockey rules don't apply here?" "Not all of them." Um. Ok.
Second, with 3:30 remaining, they called the game because tempers were flaring a bit in a game that was out of reach. This, too, is not allowed under USA Hockey:
I can't say whether they made the right decision. It didn't follow the rules, and as it turned out, it didn't prevent a fight, either. But I certainly understood their thinking.
First, as discussed after last week's game, when the refs assess a checking from behind minor penalty, a misconduct penalty is required. Last night, they called checking from behind against the other team, but no misconduct. The ref who made the call told me it's not the rule ( but see Rule 607(a): "A minor plus a misconduct penalty, or a major plus a game misconduct penalty, shall be imposed on any player who body checks or pushes an opponent from behind.") The second ref instead of disagreeing with me says, "that rule doesn't apply here." "USA Hockey rules don't apply here?" "Not all of them." Um. Ok.
Second, with 3:30 remaining, they called the game because tempers were flaring a bit in a game that was out of reach. This, too, is not allowed under USA Hockey:
Under what circumstances may a Referee terminate a game prematurely?
The only permitted premature termination of a game, other than for lack of available players, is if conditions beyond the control of all game participants (teams and Officials) become unsatisfactory. Rule Reference 637(f).
These examples would NOT qualify for premature termination of the game:
• obvious lack of bench control on one or both teams;
• midway through the game 50 penalties have been called.
I can't say whether they made the right decision. It didn't follow the rules, and as it turned out, it didn't prevent a fight, either. But I certainly understood their thinking.
Base Plays: Hybrid Zone Defense
Again, our team needs to keep it simple. Here is the hybrid zone defense. What makes it "hybrid" is that once a player establishes his zone, he looks for someone there, and checks the player in his zone closest to the net. The defending player stays on his check until another player takes over for him and the zone is restablished or the breakout begins.
The second piece is important as well. To avoid leaving players open in the slot, if the center is drawn to the corner, the weak-side wing needs to drop into the high slot to prevent open shots from there. If the defenseman retrievs the puck, that winger must immediately skate to his boards to prepare to receive a breakout pass (Click on image for larger view):
Corporatization Of Hockey In The 'Hood
The City of Oakland isn't thrilled with how things have gone in the last few years, and Iceoplex's contract has expired. After receiving proposals from 4 companies, it appears the San Jose Sharks organization will take over management of the rink in the late Spring. That's all well and good, except for this little nugget: they have an "aggressive" forecast for increasing revenues. Where does it come from? A dramatic increase in revenue from adult hockey (currently about 1/3 of the rink's revenue) without increasing the number of teams. Quick, math majors . . . how does that work? You got it . . . increasing the fees. They say they will keep the per player cost the same, but increase the average team size by 4-5. Which means less ice time, unless individual players want to pony up. Here it is: Link (at pages 2 to 3)
The city recognizes this means an increase of about 250 players in the now 64-team league. Interesting to see where they all come from
Um . . . will be interesting to see how this works itself out . . .
The city recognizes this means an increase of about 250 players in the now 64-team league. Interesting to see where they all come from
Um . . . will be interesting to see how this works itself out . . .
Mommas, Don't Let Your Kids Grow Up To Play Hockey
So I was at the hockey store this weekend buying some stuff, having some skate maintenance done, etc., and a dad walks in with his teenage and pre-teen sons. The teenager needs a new stick. $175 +tax later, the chip off the 'ol block had the newest, fanciest, coolest Bauer/Nike Vapor XXX one-piece stick. Which, at some point over the next year will get jammed into the boards at a funny angle and break.
When I was starting in hockey, Easton had just released aluminum shafts, and very few people would spend the nearly $100 (gasp!!!) to get one. I traded in my wooden sticks (the old Sher-wood 5030, Coffey curve) for a composite shaft a few years back, but I don't even have a "nice" shaft. Got mine from an ebay closeout.
Did I mention the other kid that came in with his dad for new skates? Probably around 12 or 13, too. Wears a 4 1/2. Brand spanking new, special order skates. How long do you suppose those will fit?
Anyway, getting your kids into hockey isn't getting any cheaper, is it?
When I was starting in hockey, Easton had just released aluminum shafts, and very few people would spend the nearly $100 (gasp!!!) to get one. I traded in my wooden sticks (the old Sher-wood 5030, Coffey curve) for a composite shaft a few years back, but I don't even have a "nice" shaft. Got mine from an ebay closeout.
Did I mention the other kid that came in with his dad for new skates? Probably around 12 or 13, too. Wears a 4 1/2. Brand spanking new, special order skates. How long do you suppose those will fit?
Anyway, getting your kids into hockey isn't getting any cheaper, is it?
The Rules, Explained
I seem to be on a rules kick right now. Is there any better explanation than this one:
A beer for me and my lady?
You're having beer in the parking lot in downtown Oakland at 12:15 in the morning. Guy, not exactly well dressed, walks up and says, "hey, you guys got an extra couple of beers for me and my lady?" Hey, I give the guy points for being direct about it. But we were a little short on the beer -- PBR, last night -- so we had to send him packing. Fortunately for him, hockey players are a pretty reliable group. One of the three other beer drinking groups was happy to oblige. He let us know he was ok as he left with the beer.
What impressed me most? As I got in my car and drove home, I passed him on an adjacent street. And he really was there with his "lady." Good on ya, beer hawkin' Oakland guy, good on ya.
What impressed me most? As I got in my car and drove home, I passed him on an adjacent street. And he really was there with his "lady." Good on ya, beer hawkin' Oakland guy, good on ya.
Disappointment
A showdown of the first and second place teams. We're in second, at 10-2, they're in first, at 11-1, their only loss is to us. Good game in the first period. Fast, everyone's skating hard, end-to-end action. Their goaltender is unbelievably weak, but they don't allow many shots on goal. In the second period, we pick up a goal for the 1-0 lead. But we start getting into penalty trouble (see post below), and their good skaters start dictating the pace of the game (they have a stable of good players, which, I guess, makes up for their goaltender).
In the third period, despite over 4 minutes of powerplay time for us, we're getting killed. We just can't mount any pressure, and even when we are on the power play, they are keeping the puck in our zone. With 5 minutes remaining, they finally score to tie it at 1.
Less than a minute later, they get a shot on goal, our netminder covers up, and there is the usual pile up. Three guys go down, two of ours, one of theirs. And they call our guy for interference. An awfully tight call to make in a tie game with under five minutes to play (if it was even correct, and I'm not sure that it was). 20 seconds into their power play, they score to make it 2-1.
Not more than a minute after a very tight call for interference in a tight spot in a close game, there is another shot on our net, our goalie covers, and one of their forwards charges in, attempting to bowl over our defenseman in the process. Clearly interference, as they had just called moments before against us. No call. Naturally.
We pull the goalie with under 2 minutes to play, but they freeze the puck against the boards, leading to a frustration induced checking from behind penalty against us. Nonetheless, with our goalie on the bench, we're even strength, 5-5, and finally generate a couple of chances, but don't convert. A 2-1 loss. We were outplayed, but leading most of the game, it was tough to swallow.
Making it even tougher, their goaltender is probably the worst in the league. A funny thing to say about a team that is in first place, has only lost once, and is now tied (with us) for the lowest goals against in the league. But true. He's awful. But the team in front of him is very good, and prevents the opposition (at least us) from getting many shots off.
Losing a one-goal game for first place, you think about the chances you just missed on. We had several. But, the fact is they outplayed us. They deserved the win.
We're now 1-1 against each other. I look forward to seeing them again in the playoffs.
In the third period, despite over 4 minutes of powerplay time for us, we're getting killed. We just can't mount any pressure, and even when we are on the power play, they are keeping the puck in our zone. With 5 minutes remaining, they finally score to tie it at 1.
Less than a minute later, they get a shot on goal, our netminder covers up, and there is the usual pile up. Three guys go down, two of ours, one of theirs. And they call our guy for interference. An awfully tight call to make in a tie game with under five minutes to play (if it was even correct, and I'm not sure that it was). 20 seconds into their power play, they score to make it 2-1.
Not more than a minute after a very tight call for interference in a tight spot in a close game, there is another shot on our net, our goalie covers, and one of their forwards charges in, attempting to bowl over our defenseman in the process. Clearly interference, as they had just called moments before against us. No call. Naturally.
We pull the goalie with under 2 minutes to play, but they freeze the puck against the boards, leading to a frustration induced checking from behind penalty against us. Nonetheless, with our goalie on the bench, we're even strength, 5-5, and finally generate a couple of chances, but don't convert. A 2-1 loss. We were outplayed, but leading most of the game, it was tough to swallow.
Making it even tougher, their goaltender is probably the worst in the league. A funny thing to say about a team that is in first place, has only lost once, and is now tied (with us) for the lowest goals against in the league. But true. He's awful. But the team in front of him is very good, and prevents the opposition (at least us) from getting many shots off.
Losing a one-goal game for first place, you think about the chances you just missed on. We had several. But, the fact is they outplayed us. They deserved the win.
We're now 1-1 against each other. I look forward to seeing them again in the playoffs.
Delay of Game, Checking from Behind, and Fisticuffs: A Review
I was a good kid last night. No complaining. Even though Mad Eric was out there. Of course, not 24 hours after I pointed out that the refs in our league don't follow the zero tolerance view regarding arguing calls, one of our guys argued a terrible call, and was immediately assessed a minor for arguing and a misconduct. Naturally, later in the game when one of their players wouldn't shut his cake hole asking for a delay of game call against our goaltender for knocking the net out of place (the net not even having a mooring on one side, it slid pretty easily), no call. Same ref. Oddly enough, not Mad Eric. But don't worry, Mad Eric participated in his share, as discussed below.
Some notes from blown calls last night (these are just ones that not everyone necessarily knows, these aren't all the bad calls):
At the end of the game, with a 2-1 lead, the opposing team was doing everything it could do to freeze the puck along the boards. We've all done this, whether killing a penalty or trying to get through the last few seconds of a period or game. Guess what? Not allowed. Not that a referee in our league would ever call it. Note the italics I've included:
Rule 629 Puck Must Be Kept in Motion
Some notes from blown calls last night (these are just ones that not everyone necessarily knows, these aren't all the bad calls):
At the end of the game, with a 2-1 lead, the opposing team was doing everything it could do to freeze the puck along the boards. We've all done this, whether killing a penalty or trying to get through the last few seconds of a period or game. Guess what? Not allowed. Not that a referee in our league would ever call it. Note the italics I've included:
Rule 629 Puck Must Be Kept in Motion
(a) The puck must at all times be kept in motion. Play shall not be stopped because the puck is frozen along the boards by two more opposing players, unless a player falls on or is knocked down onto the puck. If one player freezes the puck along the boards or if a player deliberately falls on the puck a minor penalty for delaying the game shall be assessed under Rule 609(e) or Rule 612(a).and the explanatory note:
(Note) Notwithstanding the above, the Referee may stop play along the boards if in his judgment allowing play to continue will lead to unnecessary contact surrounding the puck.
(b) A minor penalty shall be imposed on any player including the goalkeeper who holds, freezes or plays the puck with his stick, skates or body along the boards in
such a manner as to cause a stoppage of play.
(c) A player beyond his Defending Zone shall not pass nor carry the puck backward into his Defending Zone for the purpose of delaying the game except when his team is below the on ice numerical strength of the opponents. For an infringement of this
rule, the face-off shall be at the nearest end face-off spot in the Defending
Zone of the offending team.
Why did I note the italics? Because with a minute to play, one of our guys got frustrated at this tactic, and while one of their players was "tying" the puck up against the boards, he hit him hard from behind. That wouldn't have happened had the referees enforced the rule above. Nonetheless, everyone on the ice and the bench saw what was clearly a major penalty. Here's the rule:In the instance in which only one player intentionally holds the puck along the boards for three seconds, the Referee shall have no alternative but to assess a minor penalty for Delaying the Game to the offending player.
Rule 607 Checking from Behind
(a) A minor plus a misconduct penalty, or a major plus a game misconduct penalty, shall be imposed on any player who body checks or pushes an opponent from behind.
Interesting to note that even if the penalty itself deserved a minor, not a major, a misconduct penalty shall be imposed. In our case, a major was the right call.
Of course, immediately following the check from behind/boarding, the opposing player got up swinging he elbows trying to hit our guy (who had already skated away). This, too, we've all done. As I said the other day, sometimes you have to stick up for yourself. Instead of hitting our offending player, he hit another of our players. However, there was no penalty assessed. Mad Eric's reasoning? "He thought that was the guy that hit him." So, in my nicey-nicey-I'm-the-team-captain-and-I'm-entitled-to-an-explanation voice (really, I was quite calm) I say, "so that's not a penalty -- he's allowed to retaliate? Can you tell me what rule that is?" Mad Eric then said the other ref made the call. Which is amusing because after the game the other ref offered two explanations: (1) "I let Eric make the call;" and (2) "we've been allowing that all game." Elbowing? I don't think so. In any case, here's the unsurprising rule:
Rule 613:
(b) A minor penalty shall be imposed on a player who, having been struck, shall retaliate with a blow or attempted blow. However, at the discretion of the Referee a double minor or a major penalty may be imposed if such player continues the altercation.
Because knowing is half the battle . . .
Watch Your Mouth, Captain . . .
I'm never one to shy away from telling a referee what I think of him. This is something I need to work on. With the help of the rules, I'm trying, I'm really trying . . .
From USA Hockey's rules for 2005-2007:
From the Players Code of Conduct:
From USA Hockey's rules for 2005-2007:
From the Players Code of Conduct:
"Never argue with an official’s decision."From the Officials Code of Conduct:
"Adopt a “zero tolerance” attitude toward verbal or physical abuse."Furthermore:
"The following points of emphasis must be implemented byRule 601 states:
all Referees and Linesmen:
Players
A penalty (Zero Tolerance) shall be assessed whenever a player
(please refer to Rule 601 for appropriate penalty):
1. Openly disputes or argues any decision by an official.2. Uses obscene or vulgar language at any time, including any
swearing, even if it is not directed at a particular person.
3. Visually demonstrates any sign of dissatisfaction with an official’s
decision.
Any time that a player persists in any of these actions, additional
penalties shall be assessed per the penalty progression established
under Rule 601."
"(a) Any player who challenges or disputes the rulings of anyGood thing most of our refs don't know the rules that well . . .
Official or endeavors to incite an opponent (including
taunting) or create a disturbance during the game shall be
assessed a minor penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct. If the
player persists in such challenge or dispute, he shall be
assessed a misconduct penalty, and any further dispute by
the same player will result in a game misconduct penalty
being assessed . . .
(c) If any player is guilty of any one of the following, his team
shall be assessed a bench minor penalty:
(1) In the vicinity of the players’ bench, using obscene,
profane or abusive language to any person or using the
name of any Official coupled with any vociferous remarks."
Game Night
Thursday night, after 10pm. Beauty. Gotta have beers in the parking lot after the game. Homeless guy will ask if we have anything to spare so he can "get into the shelter." Riiight. The post-game beer means getting home around 1. Which makes for a tired friday at work. Could be worse, could be a Tuesday night, with the rest of the week to struggle through. Oh right -- that's next week.
One guy's out with the flu, so we've got 11 skaters. That's about right: 2 forward lines, 5 D. If everyone shows. If one more guy catches the flu, a late night at work, or a hot date, we'll still have 10, which is fine; actually perfect by our standards: 2 lines of forwards and D. Of course somebody will be running late (how you run late to at 10 o'clock game is sometimes a mystery to me), so we'll wonder how many guys we really have. But we're not short, and some's bringing beer, so our bases are covered.
One guy's out with the flu, so we've got 11 skaters. That's about right: 2 forward lines, 5 D. If everyone shows. If one more guy catches the flu, a late night at work, or a hot date, we'll still have 10, which is fine; actually perfect by our standards: 2 lines of forwards and D. Of course somebody will be running late (how you run late to at 10 o'clock game is sometimes a mystery to me), so we'll wonder how many guys we really have. But we're not short, and some's bringing beer, so our bases are covered.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)