Dear Tomas,
Last night was rough. Not so much the game. The game was actually pretty awesome. Especially that Schenn goal. You've done good by him, and that goal was a testament to your role as his mentor.
Look, I know it hasn't always been easy with the two of us. In fact, you could probably even call the 2008-2010 stretch a tad tenuous. But who was the first person to admit she was wrong when you showed up to play back in October? It was me, Tomas. And I had your back, for better or for worse, when Burke didn't move you during the summer window in the no-trade clause. Sure, maybe it was partially due to not thinking the potential return would be worth the cost, but perhaps it had also finally hit me how empty it would feel when you were gone. That, and the fact that you're a really, really good hockey player.
I'm sure it's my own naivete, but after the various media circuses Burke conjured up every time there seemed to be an opportunity to move you, I truly didn't believe he ever would. So February 18th hit me hard. Over a month later I'm still trying to come to terms with it.
I didn't think I was this sentimental. I thought I knew what I wanted -- a complete turnover; a fresh start for the blue-and-white that could be only be achieved by completely jettisoning the old guard and starting from scratch with all those draft picks the Leafs didn't actually have.
But now there is no remaining vestige from the glory years of my childhood -- the time when every year could have been the year; the years I took making the playoffs for granted and instead spent my time concerned about seeding and home-ice advantage; the years that the powerplay actually scored every once in a while; the years before I ever worried about roster depth or having strong pivots.
You were a part of that. You served as a constant reminder that there was once a time when hockey didn't end in April and blaring car horns were all that could be heard in the Toronto streets. Both of us believed you could be a part of that again, believed that you could help bring the Leafs back to postseason relevance. And now you're wearing white, yellow, and black and I don't know what to do.
For all your critics, at age 33 you're 15th in points for defensemen, ahead of all three of last year's Norris finalists, and still an example of exactly what an offensive-defenseman should be. There are so many good years ahead of you, and it kills me to know I'll have to watch them while listening to Jack Edwards' truly scintillating play-by-play.
But I'm still a fairly young Toronto Maple Leaf fan, not yet jaded enough to accept the realities that make me uncomfortable. I have faith that you'll make it home one day, Kabby. And I will meet you there, no matter what the ticket price.
All the best,
Gary Roberts: Baby Eater
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Today in old news...
I've watched the video of Chara driving Pacioretty into the stanchion between the benches over and over again since last Tuesday and have read what must be close to fifty articles from all the different sides in an attempt to figure out how exactly I feel about it. I've come up with the following:
1. It is making me very sick to my stomach.
2. It was interference gone terribly, terribly wrong.
3. I have no idea what Chara's "intent" was, nor do I think it can be discerned from watching a video at top speed. As for slow motion and freeze-frames -- it is far too easy too take any individual moment and extrapolate some minute expression on Chara's face or placement of his hand to help indict him.
I have never supported the NHL dolling out punishment based on injury, as I believe that it is the action itself that should be punished. Slight differences to body positioning at top speeds can mean the difference between a hit knocking a player off the puck or knocking him out cold.
This is why I believe that if a player is performing an action that is deemed dangerous or reckless he should be penalized, even if the victim doesn't end up missing a shift. A high stick that knocks the back of a guy's helmet and a high stick that draws blood should be treated equally by league officials, as it is the action itself that is the problem. A stick in the air poses a danger to all the other players on the ice, which is why it warrants a penalty. No room for interpretation, no question about a player's intent, just the penalty that is outlined in the rules.*
(*Unless you're Tyler Ennis, apparently.)
Of course, situations like the Chara hit, much like the head-shot issue, are not quite as clear-cut. What Chara did was interference, and was duly punished on the play. He received a major and a game misconduct, likely as much to keep him out of the game to prevent a third period gong show than anything else.
This takes us to Wednesday, when Chara had his call with the league to determine supplemental discipline. The result, as I'm sure you're aware, is that there was none. The league called the injury sustained by Pacioretty an unfortunate result to a hockey play, but believed that Chara did not act with malicious intent, and thus chose not to suspend him.
I understand this; what Chara did was no more against the rules than any other routine interference call. Pacioretty's injury was a result of where the hit occurred on the ice -- the turnbuckle between the benches. Now, I would love to see some sort of rule put in place by the NHL that acknowledges the danger that this part of the rink poses to its athletes. However, the way the rulebook is currently written, Chara was making a defensive play to keep Pacioretty away from the puck because he knew he had been beaten by the guy's speed. It was an illegal play, yes, but it was still just interference.
The controversy over the hit stems from the question of intent on the part of Chara; did he or did he not intend to injure Pacioretty, knowing - and he did know, as he is a professional hockey player and has played in rinks with the exact same structure for 13 years - where he was on the ice. Chara claims he did not, Pacioretty disagrees, and everyone else is picking sides using completely identical videos and freeze-frames as evidence.
The NHL shot itself in the foot when it decided supplemental discipline would be dependent on the "intent" behind an action, because there is absolutely no way to know a player's intent at any given moment of a high-speed hockey game. Did Chara want to take Pacioretty out with the hit? Well, I assume so. Wouldn't any defenseman hope to hit an opponent hard enough to keep him from getting to the puck? But did he intend to cause a severe concussion and fracture a vertebra? I doubt it. Chara knew exactly what he was doing and where on the ice he was when he hit Pacioretty, but I don't believe for a second he had any idea the full extent of the damage such a hit could cause. But here's the thing: none of that should matter.
The hit was reckless given where it occurred on the ice, and should warrant suspension because of that; not because of supposed malicious intent. A player got injured on an illegal play and Chara should be held responsible. The NHL needs to implement a rule that carries a specific penalty for a reckless play that puts a player in this sort of danger, without the caveat of whatever it is Mike Murphy decides is going on in the player's head at that given moment.
The room for interpretation regarding "intent" is the very reason Rule 48 is such a contested mess. It needs to be fixed going forward, and here's an opportunity for the NHL to show that even if it doesn't know how, it understands why.
1. It is making me very sick to my stomach.
2. It was interference gone terribly, terribly wrong.
3. I have no idea what Chara's "intent" was, nor do I think it can be discerned from watching a video at top speed. As for slow motion and freeze-frames -- it is far too easy too take any individual moment and extrapolate some minute expression on Chara's face or placement of his hand to help indict him.
I have never supported the NHL dolling out punishment based on injury, as I believe that it is the action itself that should be punished. Slight differences to body positioning at top speeds can mean the difference between a hit knocking a player off the puck or knocking him out cold.
This is why I believe that if a player is performing an action that is deemed dangerous or reckless he should be penalized, even if the victim doesn't end up missing a shift. A high stick that knocks the back of a guy's helmet and a high stick that draws blood should be treated equally by league officials, as it is the action itself that is the problem. A stick in the air poses a danger to all the other players on the ice, which is why it warrants a penalty. No room for interpretation, no question about a player's intent, just the penalty that is outlined in the rules.*
(*Unless you're Tyler Ennis, apparently.)
Of course, situations like the Chara hit, much like the head-shot issue, are not quite as clear-cut. What Chara did was interference, and was duly punished on the play. He received a major and a game misconduct, likely as much to keep him out of the game to prevent a third period gong show than anything else.
This takes us to Wednesday, when Chara had his call with the league to determine supplemental discipline. The result, as I'm sure you're aware, is that there was none. The league called the injury sustained by Pacioretty an unfortunate result to a hockey play, but believed that Chara did not act with malicious intent, and thus chose not to suspend him.
I understand this; what Chara did was no more against the rules than any other routine interference call. Pacioretty's injury was a result of where the hit occurred on the ice -- the turnbuckle between the benches. Now, I would love to see some sort of rule put in place by the NHL that acknowledges the danger that this part of the rink poses to its athletes. However, the way the rulebook is currently written, Chara was making a defensive play to keep Pacioretty away from the puck because he knew he had been beaten by the guy's speed. It was an illegal play, yes, but it was still just interference.
The controversy over the hit stems from the question of intent on the part of Chara; did he or did he not intend to injure Pacioretty, knowing - and he did know, as he is a professional hockey player and has played in rinks with the exact same structure for 13 years - where he was on the ice. Chara claims he did not, Pacioretty disagrees, and everyone else is picking sides using completely identical videos and freeze-frames as evidence.
The NHL shot itself in the foot when it decided supplemental discipline would be dependent on the "intent" behind an action, because there is absolutely no way to know a player's intent at any given moment of a high-speed hockey game. Did Chara want to take Pacioretty out with the hit? Well, I assume so. Wouldn't any defenseman hope to hit an opponent hard enough to keep him from getting to the puck? But did he intend to cause a severe concussion and fracture a vertebra? I doubt it. Chara knew exactly what he was doing and where on the ice he was when he hit Pacioretty, but I don't believe for a second he had any idea the full extent of the damage such a hit could cause. But here's the thing: none of that should matter.
The hit was reckless given where it occurred on the ice, and should warrant suspension because of that; not because of supposed malicious intent. A player got injured on an illegal play and Chara should be held responsible. The NHL needs to implement a rule that carries a specific penalty for a reckless play that puts a player in this sort of danger, without the caveat of whatever it is Mike Murphy decides is going on in the player's head at that given moment.
The room for interpretation regarding "intent" is the very reason Rule 48 is such a contested mess. It needs to be fixed going forward, and here's an opportunity for the NHL to show that even if it doesn't know how, it understands why.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Baby Eater of the Week
Now before you say anything, I know it's been a while, but you have to understand I've got a lot of Leafs-related business floating around in my head right now and with every passing day it's getting more and more daunting to think of trying to express all that in a single post, especially as midterm season is still very much a reality and as I would like to one day make over the minimum wage (keep in mind I'm in America, so we're looking at about $5/hr here) I'm really trying to take them seriously.
Therefore I'm going complete avoidance on this for one more day, but had to share this video I just found at Barstool Sports because it's awesome and I'm hoping it will buy me some favour and all in my extended absence.
So your Baby Eater of the Week for 3/6/11 is... this guy:
Judd Blackwater of the CHL's Allen Americans beating down whoever that poor sap is whose name I already forgot, which is probably the best thing I can do for him.
Also, it is my new personal life goal to figure out who these announcers are and get them doing national broadcasts. I'm thinking if we all band together and petition TSN they'll have to agree to let these guys call all Leaf games forever, right? After all, TSN is notorious for valuing the opinion of the largest fan base in Canada, which is totally obvious in the way Gord Miller and Pierre McGuire never say anything dumb and unfounded about the Toronto Maple Leafs and always express complete objectivity whenever covering their games. No, I'm sure TSN would really value our feedback and support of these new candidates, and I do believe the best way to express this support would be to march on over to their studios and yell a whole bunch of profanities until good stuff happens. But please, leave the torches at home, folks; we're not Habs fans.
Therefore I'm going complete avoidance on this for one more day, but had to share this video I just found at Barstool Sports because it's awesome and I'm hoping it will buy me some favour and all in my extended absence.
So your Baby Eater of the Week for 3/6/11 is... this guy:
Judd Blackwater of the CHL's Allen Americans beating down whoever that poor sap is whose name I already forgot, which is probably the best thing I can do for him.
Also, it is my new personal life goal to figure out who these announcers are and get them doing national broadcasts. I'm thinking if we all band together and petition TSN they'll have to agree to let these guys call all Leaf games forever, right? After all, TSN is notorious for valuing the opinion of the largest fan base in Canada, which is totally obvious in the way Gord Miller and Pierre McGuire never say anything dumb and unfounded about the Toronto Maple Leafs and always express complete objectivity whenever covering their games. No, I'm sure TSN would really value our feedback and support of these new candidates, and I do believe the best way to express this support would be to march on over to their studios and yell a whole bunch of profanities until good stuff happens. But please, leave the torches at home, folks; we're not Habs fans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)