Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Finding Loopholes: Making Rules on the Fly

I don't know how to frame this without going on about what a drama queen Marty Brodeur is, how slanted the reffing has been, and, and... okay - instead, I'll recommend the following.

watch this first...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ec_2oKWe2Gw

...and then read this:


http://rangers.lohudblogs.com/2008/04/14/the-avery-rule/

5 comments:

Bethany said...

I don't think it was Marty's comments that made the league change the rule, Marty wasn't very talkative about it.

"I've been watching games for 33 years and I have never seen anything like that in my life," Brodeur said. "If it's within the rules, it's within the rules. The official came over and said it probably wasn't something that should be done."

"Nobody should have to play hockey with a stick an inch from your face," Brodeur said. "But it wasn't a bad play. While he was doing it, I couldn't see anything. The two misses were just luck, I couldn't see a thing."

"I'm trying to get to the puck, it's a five-on-three," Brodeur said. "I'm trying to just look around and it's almost impossible because his stick's so close to my face and his hands. ... I think this kind of behavior in front of the net isn't really something that should be done."


Avery made an ass out of himself. I'm all for the rule.

Dare said...

I was in total agreement with Ron MacLean when he said that Avery could/should have been given a misconduct for inciting. It wouldn't have been unreasonable to give him two for unsportsmanlike (though I probably wouldn't have done 2/10, just one or the other). I think the only reason they didn't (and it speaks to the experience of a guy like Van Massenhoven) is because it was something that no one had ever seen/considered doing before.

I guarantee you Avery wouldn't have done it if the Rangers hadn't already been on a 5-3. And seriously, just from a safety perspective, the last way I would want to be facing is away from the play. I'm sure a slapshot to the spine would do a good amount of damage (just look what it did to Thoeresen's nads...)

I think it would look really bad for the NHL to not take a proactive stance on ensuring that behaviour like Avery's doesn't occur again. Especially for the US market, where hockey is already a difficult sell and viewed pretty negatively/like this odd sport brought in from Canada. I can just imagine what they said about it on some stations, you know?

Kerri said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kerri said...

I'll tell you what they said. "Isn't that funny?" Not "*gasp* poor Mr. Goalie in Red!" like some people assume.

By changing rules mid-playoff run, America's going to laugh at you. No wonder the NHL has the ratings it does. Rules change like lines; on the fly.

If you want to sell hockey, sell Avery. He's the circus, whether you like his antics or not. Nothing is better for hockey than Avery being on the front page for being an ass.

Amy Lynn said...

I, personally, think that people are making this way more of an issue than it is. What Avery did is...what Avery does. Piss people off. And he's good at it. It didn't really come as a surprise. He's probably going to figure out another way to push people's buttons. I chuckled when I was watching the game. The next day they MODIFY the rule; everything's square. I doubt it will happen again.