On Tuesday night, the Boston Bruins absolutely had to have a victory. That’s right, the defending Stanley Cup Champions were in a must-win situation…..on November 1. Coming into Tuesday’s game against Ottawa, the B’s had lost 3 straight and seven of their first ten this season, with a 2-5-0 record at the TD Garden. Sporting a 3-7-0 record, good for dead-last in the Eastern Conference, the Bruins were in desperate need of a victory. Fortunately for Boston, the defending Cup Champs where able to deliver.

Despite a lack-luster 1st period that saw the B’s go down 2-1 to a young Ottawa Senators squad, Boston was able to recover and defeat the Sens 5-3 at the Garden. In a game in which frustration was sure to boil over, the B’s went down early after Ottawa scored a fluky-type goal, that bounced in off of Adam McQuaid, at the 5:19 mark of the 1st period. Boston was able to respond when Milan Lucic tied the score at 1 as he knocked home the rebound of a Zdeno Chara point shot on the power-play. Unfortunately for the B’s, a mere 0:16 seconds later, the Sens regained the lead on former Merrimack College forward Stephane DaCosta’s 3rd goal of the season.

Being able to respond in the 2nd period was crucial if the Bruins wanted to come out of Tuesday’s game with their 4th win of the season. At the 4:21 mark of the 2nd frame, B’s alternate captain Patrice Bergeron tied the game at 2 as he fired a wrist shot past Craig Anderson’s blocker-side after receiving  a beautiful cross-ice feed from Tyler Seguin. It wasn’t until the 18:00 mark of the 2nd period that Boston would take it’s first lead of the night after some hard-work and cycling behind the net from Rich Peverley led to a one-timer goal for Chris Kelly.

“I think it was a great play by Rich and I think everyone was kind of focused on him because he entered the zone with so much speed. It was a great pass by him and I happened to find that area up in the high slot.” – Chris Kelly

The ability to bounce back after getting behind twice early, was a huge factor in tonight’s win for Boston. “When they scored to tie it, we didn’t get down on ourselves…..it’s nice to see us come back hard” said Bruins’ forward Daniel Paille.

When Ottawa rookie defenseman Jared Cowen potted his first career goal at the 5:04 mark of the final frame, it appeared as if the Bruins might once again find themselves on the wrong end of the scoreboard. Tuesday night, the B’s were not going to allow that to happen. Only 1:37 after the Sens had tied the game, Boston jumped back on top as Johnny Boychuk blasted a slap-shot through a screen and past Anderson to give the Bruins the lead.

“It’s obviously a huge goal for us. That’s exactly what we needed to respond right away, almost right after. It showed that tonight everyone was on the same page and it paid off. ” – Patrice Bergeron

The Bruins would not look back from there, extending their lead to 5-3 on a breakaway goal from Daniel Paille, a mere 0:37 seconds after Boychuk gave Boston the lead.

In what many consider a more well-rounded effort from the Black & Gold, B’s forward Chris Kelly saw great improvements in the overall play of his team:

“I thought, for the most part, that was the most consistent effort that we’ve had so far this year. There were still times that I thought we could’ve been a bit better, but we played well.” – Chris Kelly

Consistency, which has been the Bruins’ biggest Achilles heel in 2011-12 was definitely not an issue on Tuesday, as the B’s received solid offensive contributions up and down the line-up — 1 goal from each forward line, 13 skaters registered a point — and were able to assert themselves physically in all three zones of the ice. Boston must build off Tuesday’s victory and bring the same type of effort on Saturday, when they visit the division leading Maple Leafs.

“Tonight was a start, and it has to carry over to next game. That’s where we have to be determined to want to bring those kind of efforts with us in the next game (Against Toronto) which is going to be as tough a team to play right now as any.” – Claude Julien

 

KEY STATS

Goals–                  OTT (3)        BOS (5)

Shots–                  OTT (26)      BOS (41)

Power-Play–      OTT (0-3)    BOS (1-7)

Penalty-Kill–      OTT (6-7)     BOS (3-3)

Three Stars– ….. 3.) Nick Foligno ….. 2.) Patrice Bergeron ….. 1.) Rich Peverley

What’s Next?

The Bruins will once again be the beneficiaries of an extended period of days off, as their next game is not until Saturday evening when they visit Phil Kessel and his 1st-place Toronto Maple Leafs. When the two teams met on October 20 at the TD Garden, Boston dominated, winning 6-2 in front of their home fans. On Saturday, Kessel –the league’s leading goal-scorer– and the Leafs will look for revenge, on the ice of the Air Canada Centre. For Ottawa, it’s a return home to the confines of ScotiaBank Place for a 3-game home-stand that will feature visits from Jacques Martin’s Montreal Canadiens, the Sabres, and the Rangers.

Thanks For Reading!

Be Sure To Follow Me On Twitter: @BWoodward_HI and “LIKE” The Bruins HockeyIndependent Facebook Page!

twitter.com/PenguinsMarchHockey Independent on Facebook

It is important to note that both Asham and Beagle agreed to engage in combat at this point.  After the Washington centre tried a few right hooks to Asham’s back, the Pens’ winger straightened up and swiftly connected twice in quick succession with Beagle’s left jaw, bringing Beagle to his knees before he fell to the ice unconscious.  As Asham skated to the penalty box, he made an “It’s over!” motion and then a “sleep” gesture with his hands to accentuate his decisive knockout.

Were Asham’s gestures “classless” as he himself confessed after the game?  Yes.

If a fight ends with both men still conscious and able to skate to the box, then there would be nothing wrong if either fighter swings his arms skyward to fire up the crowd and their respective bench.  However, when one combatant has fallen to the ice with an injury, the “code” must prevail and the victor should simply skate away, satisfied with the win without rubbing it in the face of the loser.  Asham may not have immediately known when he turned his back that Beagle was seriously hurt, but the fact that Asham saw his opponent’s knees buckle and then made the mock-sleeping gesture indicates he knew that Beagle was not getting back up anytime soon.

Should Asham have received more than a standard five-minute fighting major penalty?  Yes.

Under Rule 75.2 (i) of the NHL Rule Book, an unsportsmanlike conduct minor penalty “shall be assessed … [if] any identifiable player uses obscene, profane or abusive language or gestures directed at any person.”  Taunting and gestures were an issue the NHL explicitly reviewed and condemned in a video on Rule Enforcement prior to 2010-11.  (Note the throat-slashing gesture by a Calgary player seated in the penalty box at 5:23 of the video).  Asham stepped into unsportsmanlike territory with his post-fight conduct and by the book, should have received a penalty.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Asham was not suspended.  Should he have received supplementary discipline?  No.

In a month-long time-frame that has seen Brendan Shanahan turn on a fire hose of suspensions, one may wonder why Asham was not issued supplemental discipline.  If the guiding principle of most of Shanahan’s decisions so far has been to use lengthy suspensions as a deterrent to dissuade players from recklessly or intentionally causing injuries to others, especially when the head is the principal point of contact, then it is more clear why Asham was able to suit up for the Penguins’ next game.

Asham most certainly delivered a shot to the head of Beagle – two hard ones, actually – but it was not a “head shot” in the current vernacular of the NHL as prohibited by Rule 48 – “Illegal Checking to the Head“.  These were shots to the head occurring in a fair, one-on-one fight, not a head shot delivered with a shoulder or elbow to an unsuspecting player.  Asham was responding to Beagle roughing up Letang and invited the Washington player to fight.  Beagle clearly agreed, or in legalese, gave his verbal consent understanding the benefits and risks of the imminent fisticuffs, and the two squared off.

This was a case of Asham, caught up in the moment of emphatically conquering his opponent, demonstrating poor sportsmanship through a taunting gesture as he turned and skated away.  As distasteful as Asham’s actions were, there really is no solid ground for supplemental discipline here.  Moreover, this fight (or any fight) clearly does not fall into the domain of the debate on checking to the head and resulting concussions.  If it is blood and injuries resulting from fighting that critics find reprehensible, then that is a separate but valid issue. However, despite perennial reports of its demise, fighting is here to stay not because it sells tickets and brings spectators to their feet, but simply because it is the single most tangible act players can use to show solidarity with, and to energize their teammates.

You cannot diminish the violence in the sport of hockey without diminishing the sport itself. Hockey is as football and boxing are. It is intrinsically violent and reducing this violence will change the essence of our great sport. A mutated form of hockey is a bad and less interesting form of the game.

The true essence of the sport and the duty of its players are to separate the opponent from the puck and protect teammates by whatever means necessary, whenever necessary. That is what fans expect and pay money to watch.

Capitals forward Mike Knuble agrees, “Intimidation is part of the game, and it’s ingrained in players.”

Plain and simple…fighting and body contact draws fans and is vitally important to the players and both should be left in the game. In fact, if the players were allowed to police themselves as in the past, the fear of fighting would be the built in deterrent to the boarding and cheap shots that the NHL is searching for. Hockey is a highly emotional game and if you take fighting out of it, I believe it would increase violence.

“Hockey is a unique game in that we have players of all different sizes, with different skill levels and different degrees of courage,” said Nashville General Manager David Poile. “Each is carrying a stick, and a stick has always been a great equalizer. Often times, fighting has been a deterrent for people to stay within character. If you talk to the players, fighting is more important to them than it is to the fans.”

Concussions are prevalent, even in youth hockey, where there is no checking or fighting. Still, to this day, most head injuries in the NHL are a result of normal play. The NHL rolled out Rule 48 trying to curb concussions, making blind side hits to the head illegal but still allowing shoulders to the head. This was obviously a public relations action intended to quiet the concussion controversy. The NHL realizes that violence and fighting are essential to the game, and I, for one, agree. Concussions are an unfortunate result of normal play in hockey and anyone who participates in the game knows this.

The NHL is going down the right road by instituting the Concussion Protocol stating:  “Players suspected of having a concussion will be removed from the game and sent to a quiet place free from distraction so they can be examined by the on-site team physician. The physician will use the Sports Concussion Assessment Tool test to evaluate the player. Symptoms include loss of consciousness, coordination or balance problems, a blank or vacant look, slow to get up after a hit to the head, disorientation, clutching of the head after a hit or visible facial injury in combination with another symptom.”

Certainly this is not perfect, but it is a step in the right direction. Fans must realize that concussions and fighting are a part of a normal hockey season. It is a tough game, played by tough men. Helping the physically and mentally injured players is commendable, but taking steps banning hitting and/or fighting would be catastrophic for the NHL.

Follow me on Twitter @LightningShout and Like HockeyIndependent on Facebook.

Examining Further Nashville Trade Rumors

Last night was the second game of the scheduled three games in which Montreal plans to scout the Nashville Predators.  The rumors have seemed to surround J.P. Dumont and/or Steve Sullivan for Nashville with Sergei Kostitsyn’s brother Andrei being the player rumored to be coming back.

While injuries to Marcel Goc and Steve Sullivan last night might have put a damper on those trade attempts, did they make sense in the first place?

J.P. Dumont’s ice time has certainly decreased to the point that a change of scenery might do him some good.  While Dirk has pointed out that he still plays a significant role on the power play, the fact that Nashville’s power play just isn’t that good seems to indicate that a change there might not be a bad idea too.

Steve Sullivan certainly gets the ice time when he’s healthy.  He also is still contributing points, even if he appears to be snake-bitten in regards to his ability to finish off a breakaway.  While Sullivan brings more positives to the ice lately than Dumont, he also is becoming less of a fit for how Nashville is heading.  When you look at Nashville’s forwards, every one of them plays a gritty two-way game with speed that allows for a puck possession strategy with the occasional rush- except for Steve Sullivan and Cal O’Reilly (who’s injured).  Sullivan’s propensity to be easily knocked off the puck and to turn the puck over has made him a less than ideal fit for Nashville’s current style.

So, from a personnel standpoint, both Dumont and Sullivan might make sense moving either.  However, there are complicating factors.  Both have no trade/movement clauses in their contracts.  Both appear to love the area (as do their families) and intend to make Nashville their home after retiring (which might be after their current contracts).  On top of that, Dumont still has another year at $4 million.

Given all that, it would appear unlikely either are traded.  Maybe Sullivan might consider a trade to another contending team where he might fit even better since it would only be for a few months.  I doubt either will be moved though.

Around the NHL

Penguins vs. Islanders Aftermath- Should Fighting Exist in Hockey?

(Edit: Mark presents his excellent take on the issue as well.)

A lot of discussion has taken place in the hockey world among the media and the fans (here, here, and here) regarding fighting in the aftermath of the Penguins and Islanders “tilt” that resulted in multiple suspensions and one team being fined $100,000.  Much of that discussion has attempted to focus on the question of whether fighting should exist in the game at all.  Those that favor a ban on fighting have also brought a new weapon to the table- the “concussion prevention/headshot” angle.

There have even been rumblings from the League at times to come up with ways of eliminating “staged” fights and the ever-increasing number of fights after legitimately clean hits.  While rarely called, the League does have the instigator penalty.  Fights occurring in the last five minutes of a game also generate an “automatic review” by the League office and could result in a suspension for the instigator and a hefty fine for the coach.  Clearly, the League sees fighting as part of the sport but do have measures in place in an attempt to control their frequency and circumstances.  And, while fighting is definitely a part of hockey, when the games mean something (like the playoffs or international tournaments) fighting goes way down.

Many people think (if the linked threads above are any indication) that fighting makes hockey unique among the major team sports.  In some ways it does, but now in how most think.  Hockey is not unique in that fighting occurs.  All of the major sports have fighting incidents.  This past year saw a fight during the Tennessee Titans and Houston Texans NFL game between the Titans’ Cortland Finnegan (think Jordin Tootoo) and the Texans’ Andre Johnson.  The NFL sees a lot of pushing and shoving.  MLB and NBA fights are not unheard of, nor are the occasional driver fights in NASCAR.  Where hockey is unique is that the vast majority of fights have no bearing on the outcome of the game and fall within that area in which the League has shown a desire (at times, albeit half-heartedly) to eliminate.

If the League were to show a better desire to rid the game of these incidents, what could be done to assist in that.

First and foremost, Stu Hackel summed it up very well in that much stiffer punishments should be handed down by the League.

Secondly, I’d modify the rulebook to be more stringent against fights without fully removing them from the game.

• Modify Rule 47.14 to change the standard type of penalty for fighting from a Major to a Misconduct. This would effectively remove the participants from the ice for 10 minutes as opposed to just the five minutes today.  In and of itself, it also removes any short-handed time.
• Add Rule 47.23 – Delay of Game Minor – Both participants will be assessed a Coincidental Delay of Game Minor penalty in addition to the standard Game Misconduct.  If an Instigator penalty has been assessed as well, it will be served after the Delay of Game has been served.  In that event, the Instigating team will appoint a player to serve the Delay of Game penalty along with the actual offending player. This penalty, in addition to Rule 47.11 (Instigator) ensures that all fights will result in one or both teams being further penalized with minors.  This should result in 4-4 or 4-3 play.  The problem with the way it is today is that there’s really no punishment when there’s coincidental majors beyond two (likely) “goons” off the ice for 5 minutes.  Their shifts are so far apart anyway so as to make the 5 minutes moot.  With this minor, specials teams play now plays a role- guaranteed.
• Highlight and Increase Enforcement of Rule 47.2 – Aggressor – Not much to add here.
• Modify Rule 47.17 – Fines and Suspensions – Aggressor – The rule in its current state is pretty useless.  I’d modify the rule to hand out the following fines and suspensions automatically that would not be included in the deliberations of additional supplemental discipline:
  • First offense: $10,000 fine and 1-game suspension
  • Second Offense: $25,000 fine and 5-game suspension
  • Third Offense: $75,000 fine and 25-game suspension to player, $50,000 fine to the head coach, and $250,000 fine to team
  • Fourth Offense: $150,000 fine and 82-game (or year-long) suspension to player, $100,000 fine and 10-game suspension to the head coach, and $500,000 fine to the team
  • Highlight and Increase Enforcement of Rule 47.11 – Instigator – Not much to add here.  It’s not called nearly as often as it should be.  I’m specifically referring to the those fights that happen following a hit deemed to be “clean”.

What’s the total overall impact to fighting with those changes?  The best way to answer that is to examine several scenarios and their impacts.

The famous Vinny Lecavalier and Jarome Iginla tilt in the Stanley Cup finals would have resulted in both players being in the penalty box for 10 minutes instead of 5.  Instead of both teams continuing play at 5-5, the coincidental Delay of Game penalties would have resulted in 4-4 play.  The downside of course is losing two players of that caliber for 10 minutes, but that should be the cost of the crackdown.  The coincidental minors might have benefitted one team over the other if they are  more suited to 4-4 play.

Your standard goon-on-goon fight should definitely be minimized.  Losing the goons for 10 minutes minimizes their ice time even more than it likely already is.  Hard to argue against that.  Additionally, if you’re a goon on a team that’s not built to take advantage of the more open and skilled play that takes place in a 4-4 situation, your coach likely keeps you on a shorter leash.  Sounds like a win-win for me.

These rule changes should also help prevent a majority of those fights caused by retaliation to completely clean hits.  So you’re a Shane O’Brien (meaning tough player willing to drop the gloves, but you play a regular role on the team) and Martin Erat comes out of one of his patented curls only to be firmly planted on the ice by a great shoulder to the chest bomb.  Do you risk the 10 minute misconduct, automatic delay of game penalty (and your team isn’t very good at 4-4), and likely instigator penalty for “revenge” of a hit the officials deemed clean?  If you do, you likely will only make that mistake once.

As for the Penguins – Islanders game, the major impact would have been seeing the goons on the ice less overall (again, a very good thing).  Michael Haley, for example, would still be serving his penalty from the first period instead of scoring early in the second.  There would also have been some stiff fines to players.

The truth is that the pitiful fines and small suspensions issued by the League are just not deterrents to the type play they have expressed the desire to eliminate from the game.  It goes well beyond the melee on Long Island or even headshots.  If the League is serious in their stated desires to rid the game of reckless behavior, this is the way to do it.

It would also help if there was more consistent officiating within a game and from game to game.  The effort last night against Vancouver was just about as piss-poor as I’ve ever seen it (and that’s saying something).  If Vancouver had been able to capitalize on all the weak penalty calls (and non-calls in their favor), frustrations might have built to a point where it boiled over (it had already reached that point with the myself and the other fans).

The Week That Was

Through three games of the four game home stand, Nashville has compiled 5 of a possible 6 points in going 2-0-1.

As of this morning, Nashville stands tied for 4th in the West with San Jose with one game in hand.  However, they are only two points ahead of 9th place Calgary.

The Week Ahead for Nashville

Nashville concludes their four game home stand tomorrow night against Phoenix, then have home games every other game.  Only the Phoenix game will not be televised.  Note the early time for the Dallas game on Saturday.

• Saturday, 2/19 – vs. Phoenix @ 7pm CST (no TV)
• Tuesday, 2/22 – at Columbus @ 6pm CST (FSN)
• Thursday, 2/24 – vs. Chicago @ 7pm CST (FSN)
• Saturday, 2/26 – at Dallas @ 1pm CST (FSN)

2011 NHL Trade Deadline: Monday, February 28th

You are invited to follow me on Twitter (@SingletonPreds).  For game recaps of all Predators games, check out my HockeyIndependent colleague, Mark Willoughby (@TheViewFrom111).

1) Can someone explain to and remind some of the fans and media types like Paul Steigerwald that it was not so long ago that the Pittsburgh Penguins were an embarrassment to the NHL — Unable to retain its key players because of ownership issues, losing on a game-in-game out basis — a laughingstock I believe were the words used to recently describe the Islanders. They were closing the door to the franchise when at the 11:59 minute they were saved. Can someone explain that to those fans who are feigning outrage at the Isles vs. Pens game of Friday night?

2) Is it possible that the NHL can be more soft on one team and more harsh on another then the way that the fines were distributed to the Islanders and hardly any to the Penguins — almost as if the league was trying to send a message? Perhaps that message is that the NHL feels that it must do what ever it can to have a viable Penguins team with the leagues biggest star in the playoffs. Suspending the players left on the roster would adversely affect their playoff standing and this would be unacceptable — especially with league revenue on the line.

3) Why is it that no one is looking into the issues which cause the problem to begin with? No one bothered to look at the hit on Blake Comeau — where Max Talbot may have kept his feet on the ice, there is an intent to injure argument that can be made. It was a clear hit to the head.

4) No one is looking at the tape of the “punch” on Rick DiPietro by Brent Johnson. I was told by someone who was at that game to look more closely at the altercation — and on inspection, you can see that Johnson is striking DiPietro with his forearm — not his fist. (1:46 into video pause it and you will see) Premeditated? Intent to injure? Did Johnson really need to come all the way down the ice on DiPietro for a marginal tap on Cooke who feigned the severity of the contact — as if we are to believe that Cooke — a player known for his toughness (see current suspension for hit to the head) is going to get that hurt by DiPietro who is made of tissue paper? (P.S. — The Islanders invented tough guys who feign injury — see Billy Smith/Glenn Anderson) Additionally — as Johnson was skating down to DiPietro, and the referee was warning him and calling him off, Johnson continued coming — should the league not look at the flagrant disregarding of the ref as a reason to suspend?

5) Why are there no suspensions or fines to the Penguins organization for not controlling their players? Eric Goddard jumping off the bench was suspended but what about the team and coach because they did not control their player — is that not exactly what Campbell said in his statement with Bettman about the Islanders as a reason for the fine?

6) There was another game last week with huge brawls between the Bruins and Canadiens. There was hardly any mention other then it was a “physical” game. No suspensions or fines were handed out that I am aware of and if there were it was not “advertised” as such a big deal. Is it possible that because both franchises are in the playoff discussion and are original 6 teams they were left alone? Perhaps they are left alone because there is a connection between a key league executive and the Bruins?

7) Why is it that this week, the NHL, its fans and media types are so hard outraged at the behavior of the Islanders  — as if to suggest “how dare the Islanders of all teams….” when there was little said about the aforementioned  Bruins – Canadiens tilt and the league  proudly displayed the Johnson- DiPietro fight, as well as the promotion of numerous other goalie brawls on its website? With that being the case, how can the league be taken seriously about it’s “outrage” about fighting, and hits to the head?

8) Colin Campbell’s son plays for the Boston Bruins. Is it possible that he and Bettman gave the Bruins a “pass” last week because of the relationship? With the man’s son playing in the NHL, is it not a conflict of interest should there be an altercation where the son or his team violates league rules? And thus does this not give the Bruins and edge in any ruling from the league on discipline matters? Perhaps we witnessed that last week already?

9) Why does a blow to the head penalty always have to include the player in question “leaving his feet” to be considered for a match penalty? Is the idea that the head is being targetted not reason enough to suspend/ban a player?

10) Is there any chance that the league will look into creating a safer environment for ALL players on ALL teams? Is it me or have their been more hits to the head then ever before and more injuries of a significant nature then ever before to all teams?

It could be the league itself headed by Gary Bettman, or the fans who pretend to be outraged, but games like the Islanders vs Penguins or Canadiens vs. Bruins earn the league big money — be it in fines or marketing capital. Lets be real — the fans love the fighting and it sells tickets!

The facts are what they are — The Islanders were going to get fined, and receive suspensions. I am actually pleased to see that Zenon Konopka and Michael Haley remain available to play in today’s game with the Sabers. The penalties levied on Matt Martin and Trevor Gillies are correct and deserving — as is the penalty on Goddard. I want to be clear that while the message needed to be sent by the Islanders, the suspensions were equally deserving!!! But the league has no problem setting the entire blame and cause on the Islanders — a team that is not making the playoffs and currently does not have game transcending star.

The NHL seems to be very choosy on its suspensions policies.  There is no consistency to their methods of dolling out punishments — and this part of my editorial has zero to do with the game in question. But it seems that the team with the “name brand” star or that star player himself, will always get the benefit of the doubt. Is it possible that it has to do with marketing and revenue? Having the star player available generates money after all.

I am certain the league is equally aware that fighting is a big part of the game and it puts fans in the stands — which once more — generate money. They might be feigning outrage today, but the simple fact is that the Johnson – DiPietro fight, the Bruins – Habs game and Isles – Pens game has generated lots of buzz and energy — and while some may be writing how it his giving the NHL a black eye, the fact is that it generates dollars — and internet hits, and sells papers, magazines, ad space — and tickets. Those of you who go to hockey games know — there are 2 things that gets you out of your seat at an NHL game. Goals and fights. And more often then not, the fights create more noise and energy then the goals. So I ask again — how can the league be taken seriously?

The NHL “hits to the head” policy is stunningly weak as well. Just because a player does not leave his feet to strike a player in the head does not mean there was not an intent to hit the head — be it with a shoulder, forearm, elbow or knee. Patrice Cormier did not leave his feet when he took out two players in juniors — almost killing Mikael Tam — and while there was some discipline by the QMJHL, there sure wasn’t anything stopping him from playing in the NHL — he has played 19 games for the Thrashers! 50 years ago no one in the NHL wore a helmet, and there were rarely the kind of head injuries we are seeing today. Are we to believe that the players on the 50s, 60s and 70s were tougher and stronger then the players of today? So I ask a third time — how can the league be taken seriously?

The reality is that a man who’s son plays for one of the 30 teams remains in a position to decide on discipline for a player that his son plays against — may have had an issue with at some point. And no matter how much Colin Campbell wants to say with his words that he is fair even if it involves the Bruins or his son, I can say as a father that is not possible — he can’t be impartial. If someone went after my son in the heat of a game — whether he is 10 years old or 20 years old — on the ice a roller hockey game or in a deck hockey game — my first instinct is going to be to protect him. There is no chance in hell there would be impartiality. It is emotion-based as any father – son situation would be.

If the NHL wants to be taken seriously, it needs to begin by finding a new league disciplinarian — and it needs to get real about hits to the head — any of them, regardless of where a players feet might be.

As for fighting and the Isles vs Pens — the only reason Pens fans are crying is because their team got beaten down — physically and on the score sheet. When it was the other way around, and DiPietro was knocked to the ice with a broken jaw, Blake Comeau was concussed at the hands of Max Talbot and the Pens skated away with a 3-0 shutout — I did not hear ANYONE in Pittsburgh say a word. They were too busy laughing at the Islanders.

“Thank you sir, may I have another?”

Against the Penguins, the Isles were thrown around like rag dolls. Not the first time that has happened this season. Last night, John Tavares was in a fight, and Kevin Poulin was thrown down to the ice as players skated off the ice.

Unacceptable.

That is the one an only word I can use to describe the physical circumstances on the Islanders.

This is not how we want to see John Tavares. In my opinion, Milan Michalek should have been severely punished by someone wearing Islander colors. The message has to be sent — you can't push us around!

It’s nice that Rick DiPietro stood up for his teammates — but he should not have done it — not in his physical state. That is bad judgment by the man with the 5¢ head — as usual. The league leader in bad judgment! And other times during the season we have seen players stand up for each other — which is fine. But it is not enough.

Perhaps I am over-reaching, but I recall a time where things were vastly different in Islander Country. It used to be that if an opposing player even glanced in the direction of Mike Bossy with even a glimmer of malicious intent in his eyes, he would looking up at his team’s doctors and trainers within a period of play and being asked to recite his name, age and what year it was. This was because one of either Clark Gillies, Gord Lane or Bob Nystrom was going to skate over and not so cordially introduce himself.

Okay, I know — a bit far fetched, but you get the point.

The message has gone forth that it is perfectly alright to push the Islander players around — be it John Tavares or Kevin Poulin. Frankly, I am surprised Tavares is not more seriously injured to this point because he has been taking a beating since his first game as an Islanders. I am not even sure how Jack Hillen is alive. He is getting tossed around the rink like he weighs 20 pounds.

So last night John Tavares had enough. He came up from the goal crease swinging. Good for Tavares. It’s great that he is standing up for himself. But the coaches should be ashamed of themselves — because there is no excuse for Tavares having to go out their and take penalties to defend himself. Not only are you putting your franchise player in harms way, but you are taking your best player off the ice.

Was I the only person watching the game in the closing seconds and waiting for retribution? Once Frans Neilsen sealed the game, with 9 seconds left, Jack Capuano should have sent Gillies, Konopka and Martin on the ice with Wishart, and Jurcina. The teams two largest players and 3 most physical assets. And in those 9 seconds, several Senators should have been pummeled — the message going forth that you will not under any circumstances push us around.

The Islanders need to do a better job in many areas — but one important area that is getting overlooked is the physicality of the game. The message needs to be re-established that you can push our players around, but if you do, you are going to pay a hefty fine. Am I the only one who believe that this type of action taken by the coaches last evening would have been a better complete effort. Am I alone in thinking this has to be doe to establish some space for our top line players?

Someone correct me if I am too “old school…”

The Game
Milan Jurcina: Is it me, or is his return always significant?

Ty Wishart: Made the case for himself — not just with two assist, but on good positional play, excellent passes, and heady play.

Matt Mouslon: Continues to go into the “dirty areas” to get his goals.

John Tavares: His game is rounding out nicely. What I like is that while he may not have scored a goal, he is getting things done in other ways.

Michael Grabner: He is becoming a threat to score or break in every time he is on the ice. Scoring 26 goals as a rookie waiver wire pick up — which is what Grabner’s pace is currently set at — would have to earn him serious consideration for at the very least a Calder nomination.

Rob Schremp: Nice to see him find a few goals. Lets home this breaks the slump.

Josh Bailey: Needs to discover who he is. I think this season is essentially lost for him. He needs to get serious for next year and the Islanders need to find the right spot for him. I still maintain that putting him along side Tavares might be a good fit.

Jack Capuano and the Isles staff: Per my notes above, stop letting the league have their way with you!

Some argued that the Blackhawks are a vulnerable team with the defensive injuries and the questionable goaltending. But they seem to be a well balanced team so it’ll do you no good to key on one line or player.

And while both the Hawks and the Canucks have six, 20-goal scorers, the ‘Nucks have the advantage in goal. I’m of the opinion that Luongo can stand on his head at any moment and absolutely guarantee a series win. I’m just as sure that he can completely tank a game and give the opposition a freebee.

But no matter, the Avalanche are facing the Sharks.

Think the Sharks remember that an eighth round seed beat ‘em last season? You bet! But that doesn’t mean that Avs are golden.

The Sharks are a huge team with a very experienced goalie. While some will argue that they are a one-line team, Marleau, Heatley and Thornton have been enough to win the west. That first line has scored 39% of the team’s goals. If the Avs can shut it down are the Sharks done? There’s one way to find out. I think that will certainly be a part of Sacco’s strategy. But the playoffs are always the time of year for heroes. Even if the Avs shut down the top line and Thornton’s line is a zero, they need to be wary of the other talented players on this team, including Nabokov.

Five for Fighting Monday

Shortly after the Olympics were over, Terry Frei at the Denver Post wrote about the lack of fighting in the Games. His point was that most fans probably didn’t miss it. Now that it’s playoff season we will see a significant drop in fighting versus the regular season. Frei has a problem with all the pre-planned fights, the “gotta go” fights between the guys that play a mere two minutes a game.

Well, I didn’t really miss it during the Olympics but that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t have been fun. I like fighting in hockey, it’s entertaining! You just can’t compare the NHL regular season to tournament hockey, as Frei does concede.

And I agree that some of the gratuitous regular season fighting is tiring. The problem is that if team A signs a slug that can’t skate but is 6-6, 250 pounds and can and WILL beat the crap outa your guys, team B is forced to return fire. Could it be better? Of course, but it’s really easy to say that about anything. If it was completely ruled out of the game I would miss it.

Ideally all teams would always have a bench full of guys that can actually play hockey. And I include guys like Ian Laperriere in that list. He is a responsible defensive forward and rock solid on the penalty kill. Scott Parker, not so much. Does Lappy drop ‘em on occasion to fire up his team? Of course he does. Eighty two games is a grind. Completely different from the win or go home stakes that are on the line in the Olympics and the playoffs.

Not that there isn’t ever fighting in the playoffs. Here is Joe Thornton dropping the gloves with Ryan Getzlaf in game six of last years first round match up. That was a great series to watch last year, very entertaining. Now despite all the talk preceding this game about how it was time for Thornton to take a stand I’m not sure anyone was expecting them to go at the opening face off.

Click here to view the embedded video.

So, was it contrived? 

Was it planned? 

Was it entertaining?

When the Penguins marched into Philadelphia earlier this season, both clubs had expectations of competing for not only the Atlantic Division crown, but also the Eastern Conference title.  On October 8, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia met in a hard-fought game with the Penguins edging the Flyers 5-4.  Evgeni Malkin led the way for Pittsburgh scoring a power-play goal in the first minute of the game and finished with two points on the evening.  This game also featured the infamous ending with two seconds left in the contest where Mike Richards ran into Marc-Andre Fleury precipitating two bizarre scenes: Chris Pronger choking Chris Kunitz by the collar of his sweater and Scott Hartnell possibly biting Kris Letang’s finger in a scrum behind the net.

Since that game, the two teams have gone in opposite directions.  The Penguins are 22-10-1, good for second in the Atlantic and fourth in the conference while Philadelphia is 15-15-1, mired in tenth place in the East.  Philadelphia fired head coach John Stevens on December 4 replacing him with Peter Laviolette, who guided Carolina to the 2006 Stanley Cup championship.  In a small sample size, the Flyers have subsequently done no better, posting a 2-4-0 mark since the coaching change.

All of this recent Philadelphia Pholly is nothing but sweet music in the ears of any long-time Penguins’ backer.  Revenge is a strong emotion in any sports rivalry and fans of a certain middle age can remember when the Flyers dominated and crushed the Penguins’ hopes routinely during the playoffs.  In 1989, despite Mario Lemieux scoring a playoff-record tying eight points and “Downtown” Robbie Brown windmilling his arm while celebrating a goal while evading the mad pursuit of goalie Ron Hextall in Game Five of the old Patrick Division Final against Philadelphia, the Flyers came back to win Games Six and Seven to end Pittsburgh’s season.  In 1997, the Flyers made quick work of the Pens in the first round, winning in five games in what would be Lemieux’s last games before his first retirement.  In 2000, the Penguins won the first two games on the road, but the series turned in the epic Game Four quintuple-overtime win by Philadelphia who won the series in six.

However, recent history is on the side of the Penguins.  The Pens defeated the Flyers in all eight contests back in 2006-07 including a game on national Canadian television when Sidney Crosby scored a career-high six points.  The following season, Pittsburgh breezed by Philadelphia in five games to capture the Conference title and last year, who can forget the comeback from three goals down to win Game Six in Philadelphia, ending the Flyers’ season once again?

The inimitable Pensblog has already settled into the spirit of the season with an honour roll of reasons to pile on to Philadelphia’s misery (note, some contents are not safe for work/school): http://thepensblog.com/pensblog/december-2009/time-to-hate.html

Even the Penguins’ official website has dedicated a front-page link today to celebrate the question “What’s the greatest Pens vs. Flyers moment ever?”

Undoubtedly, the atmosphere tonight will be raucous and playoff-like with the two teams battling hard for every square inch of ice.  It will also be interesting to observe if there are any noticeable changes to the Philadelphia plan of attack against the Penguins since the last meeting and since Laviolette took the reins.  He has tried to implement an aggressive, up-tempo system to take advantage of the Flyers’ scoring talent, after years of the questionably successful Philadelphia tradition of initimidation and emphasis on physical play.  As always, there will be plenty of storylines that develop in the game between the decades-old rivals and the best part is, if the grudges don’t develop tonight, they’ll get a chance again real quick – on Thursday evening in Philadelphia.

Sources: penguins.nhl.com, Yahoo! Sports Penguins page

In Saturday night’s tilt between the Atlanta Thrashers and the Pittsburgh Penguins a rule that is little known and inconsistently enforced across the NHL was cited to add more penalty minutes on Thrashers Captain Ilya Kovalchuk following a fight he started with Penguins Forward Matt Cooke.

75.2 Minor Penalty – A minor penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct shall be assessed under this rule for the following infractions:
(iv) When a player, including a goalkeeper, is penalized for being the instigator of an altercation and who is wearing a face shield.

Fights put players off balance. If these two go to the ice, the helmet protects their head.

Now I understand the rule.  It really is against the “code of honor” to fight with a visor on.  Flames Captain Jarome Iginla fights often and wears a visor.  He is also very sure to take the helmet off prior to landing an opening blow.  That is the major safety problem with the rule.  When a player fights without a helmet or a visor-less player has their helmet knocked off during the course of the fight they are at substantially higher risk to fall backwards and smack their heads against the ice without the benefit of a helmet to absorb part of the force of the blow.  This is how concussions occur.

I understand the intent of the rule.  It is meant to discourage players with a visor from starting fights.  My problem is that in the end, the players who put themselves at the most risk on a nightly basis are the agitators and the fighters and they will not wear a visor as long as this rule is on the books.  No number of other players sustaining severe eye and face injuries will convince them otherwise because they know they will have to remove their helmet for a fight and then they will face a higher risk of  concussion if they fall backwards.

Click here to view the embedded video.

It comes down to the same question then, should fighting be a part of the game?  I am of the school that it should.  I’ve seen games turn on the result of a fight as a player and a fan.  However this is still one of two major safety items that must be front and center for the league along with hits to the head and the rule seems counter-intuitive to where the league wants players to go with respect to visors.

Will visors be mandatory one day, probably.  Will this rule be ridiculous then?  Yes, even more so than it is today.  As long as fighting is an allowed part of the game, this rule shouldn’t be there.  Encouraging stars like Iginla to take off their helmet prior to a fight is the wrong message to send.  It is old school honor code versus common sense safety and in that fight the winner should be clear cut.

SLBD

Rugged Penguins left-wing Paul Bissonnette fights Maple Leaf defenceman Francois Beauchemin at the Toronto blue line in the third period of a pre-season game at Air Canada Centre, September 22, 2009.

Penguins’ co-enforcer Paul Bissonnette fought twice more last night to raise his pre-season total to five dust-ups.  A quick scan of the scoresheet indicates the Pens and Blue Jackets engaged in six fights.  Thinking back to this past Tuesday’s game versus Toronto I counted three scraps and Bissonnette dropped the gloves twice that night as well.

Already in the pre-season, we have witnessed the first suspension of the season, resulting from a fight.  Islanders forward Pascal Morency jumped off the bench to fight hard-hitting Dion Phaneuf immediately after Morency’s teammate, Kyle Okposo, was knocked out from an open-ice hit by the Calgary defenceman.

With fists flying left and right, in arenas east and west, before a puck has even dropped in a meaningful game, the inevitable, endless debate about the place of fighting in hockey has surfaced once again.

twitter.com/PenguinsMarchHockey Independent on Facebook

Veteran Toronto Star columnist Damien Cox wrote an insightful piece on Thursday about how the league proposed new rules and penalties to crack down on staged fights this past June – those that occur right after a faceoff – only to be rebuffed by the Players’ Association, specifically, the fighters.  Cox reasons that the missed opportunity to stifle staged fights and lax enforcement of the instigator penalty has led to more fight-interrupted games.

I agree with his deduction, but beg to differ with any calls for an absolute ban on fighting.

It is precisely because of the inability of hockey’s judiciary (the NHL and NHLPA) and laxity and inconsistency on the part of hockey’s law enforcement (the referees) that forces teams to keep one or two nomadic law enforcers (vigilantes/bounty hunters/fighters/fill-in-your-own-synonym) on their rosters.

To continue the legal analogy, remember that in any civil society, laws and punishments are established to act as a restraint and deterrent against evildoers and to serve as a protector for law-abiding citizens.  When punishments are lenient or not consistently doled out by law enforcers, criminals then become emboldened to escalate their rebellious ways.  Facing imminent anarchy and personal harm, the good citizens of society have no choice but to turn to hired vigilantes to secure protection and to restore safety.

The same principles apply to hockey and the role of the fighter.  With the exception of star power forwards like Gordie Howe, Mark Messier or Jarome Iginla, who could and can fight their own battles, scoring stars typically focus on shooting and passing the puck.  Inevitably, the star will garner attention from the opposition in the form of spearing, slashing, elbowing, kneeing, roughing, tripping, hooking, holding, boarding and a general physical beat-down.  Clearly, the referees cannot see every infraction, nor will they assess a penalty every time.  This is when the enforcer steps in and patrols the ice, by his existence warning opposing agitators away from committing any further nonsense against their skilled teammates and if necessary, meting out corporal punishment to the ignorant recidivists.

Would Wayne Gretzky and Jari Kurri have had as much space to romp in their Edmonton heyday without the deterring presence of Kevin McClelland and Marty McSorley?  Or put another way, would Mario Lemieux have exasperatedly walked away from the game in 1997 at thirty-one, tired of being poked, prodded and abused by opponents, if he still had a Kevin Stevens, a Rick Tocchet or even a Jay Caufield at his side?

Therefore, I do not disagree that fighting for its own sake needs a set of penalties as a deterring measure, but anytime I hear calls for blanket bans on fighting, I need to repeat the same message again: unless fans want to see Crosby or Evgeni Malkin or Pavel Datsyuk or Martin St. Louis or Zach Parise laying on the ice again and again, knocked out at the hands of an opposing thug who knows he can get away with it, then those same fans better rethink their position on the place of fighting in hockey.

What needs to be swept quickly out of hockey are the crosschecks aimed at the upper back, any form of boarding from behind and so-called “clean” but still dangerous shoulder-to-head open-ice hits.  This general dirtiness should be of far greater concern and is of far greater danger to any player simply because of the suddenness of its occurrence and the physical impact on a player’s head or neck.  Two players generally agree to a fight, but on a dirty play, only one player, the dirty one, knows ahead of time what calculated, dirty method he will use to knock his target senseless.

Randy Jones never gave forewarning to Patrice Bergeron when he rammed him into the boards.  Todd Bertuzzi never gave forewarning to Steve Moore when he sucker-punched and tackled him.  Claude Lemieux never gave forewarning to Kris Draper when he rammed him into the boards.  In all three cases, severe injuries resulted including concussions or trauma to the brain, face or spine, and of course, Moore’s career was finished.

For all those concerned about the health of the game, fighting should not be your enemy.  Dirty play is the enemy; it always has been.  Hockey at all levels, from house league to major junior to college to minor leagues to the NHL should institute some form of education to players on the dangers of hits from behind and the resulting damage to the brain and spine.  Concussions and their long-lasting effects should also be explained.  Unless penalties and suspensions are severely increased for dirty hits and unless players rediscover the concept of mutual respect and self-restraint, safety in hockey will always remain an unachievable dream.

Sources: thestar.com, nhl.com, hockeyfights.com

Photo: PenguinsMarch personal collection

One can debate the merits of fighting in hockey, and can cite this fight as one of many reasons why fighting should be banned. I happen to believe that fighting has a place in the game, but I also believe that certain situations can be avoided to minimize the unnecessary fighting and the potential for injury. This fight was “staged”- Ken Hitchcock had sent Sestito out to engage Tootoo. This was not a case of a player policing inappropriate behavior, instead, in my opinion, it was a player being sent onto the ice to prove he was tough enough to fill the role of an enforcer. I fault neither player in this instance, but the circumstances leading up to the fight are suspect.

There is no secret that there is no love lost between Nashville and Columbus. They are division rivals and compete fiercely during the regular season. Why are they playing each other in the preseason? The level of animosity is naturally going to be high, and it’s no secret that Tootoo gets under the skin of the Jackets. The possibility of at least one fight in a meaningless preseason game was high, especially with Columbus skating several players attempting to land the role of enforcer. Is it necessary for any coach to put a player in this position in a preseason game, a staged fight?

Fighting has a place in this great game. It’s part and parcel of the heritage of hockey. Is it essential in a preseason game? Is it essential that a young player challenge a veteran, tough fighter to prove his worth and earn a roster spot in this venue? Sestito’s body of work in Syracuse should have been sufficient to answer those questions. As it is, he is a fortunate young man that will continue in the game he loves. Someone else might not be so fortunate, and these questions will have to be addressed again, in a potentially tragic setting.