Maybe I do care

So I says to Jenn: Look, I don't really care about hockey right now. I've watched none of the pre-season games, I'm not following training camp, I have no idea who's up or cut from the roster, I don't know what the schedule is, I just don't care.

And Jenn says: Quick, which is worse, losing a limb or the leafs winning the Stanley Cup?

And I replied: which limb?

Officiating

Looks like we might be able to put the Random Wheel Of Justice away.

Houses Of The Hockey explores Shanahan's first efforts as discipline czar.

The highlight for me:

Negotiating around intent…can overly complicate behavioral modification, especially in an area like hockey where a certain level of violence is not only expected but applauded. The league would likely be far more successful in their efforts if they chose to strictly define the behaviors they want to eliminate and then consistently applied suitably large consequences to those behaviors regardless of the actors perceived intent or motivation. Meaning no more debates about whether an action was a “hockey play” or not. No more considerations paid to whether “he really meant it”.

I always said: if fighting is permitted because the reffing is bad, then fix the reffing. This is an excellent start.

(Oh, if you've noticed all the pictures are gone, that's because my hosted computer where the images are stored took a dump last week and I have not completely recovered it yet.)

An American Explains Hockey (pretty well)

Apropos of nothing, and because it is summer and there's almost nothing better to post, here is Micheal Lopp explaining why hockey is a sport:

Hockey is a sport on the clock and that clock is relentless. Look away and you might miss the second that changes the course of the entire game.

Preaching to the choir here, but a brilliant defense.

Dangerously Low Levels Of Mustache Hair Avoided

Brian Murray has been hard at work since firing Cory Clouston from his position of Head Coach. Murray has been looking hard at the history of those privileged to hold the position of Head Coach for the Ottawa Senators, and after much deliberation has determined that the principle failing has been a failure to commit.

Thus enters the mustache.

Wearing a mustache in today's world is an act which required dedication and persistence in the face of a blizzard of Gillette and Phillishave advertising, all with one message: if you ain't in the playoffs, you must be shaving.

Similarly, a head coach must be dedicated to his system and persistent in espousing it to a young team suffering in the face of a blizzard of hockey media types who are keen on finding a scapegoat to hang the latest loss on.

Looking back through Murray's history of head coaches, it is clear that this has been a deficiency that has until now been steadfastly avoided:

• John Paddock? The man obviously owns shares in Schtick.
• Craig Hartsburg? Smoother cheeks than Mr. Clean.
• Cory Clouston? Was he even capable of growing facial hair?

Thus, Murray's search for a head coach has ended with the hiring of this mustache. Former Red Wings assistant coach Paul MacLean has agreed to wear the mustache for the foreseeable future, and speak for it when necessary.

Murray can rest assured that this highly qualified Head Coach can set a road forward on the ice for the franchise. However he must be aware that should the mustache prove insufficient to the challenge facing it, he will be forced to seek out a beard as a fill-in.

---

(Seriously, Mr. MacLean, welcome to Ottawa. We're lucky to have you, and I hope that Mr. Murray can give you the pieces needed to build a foundation for future success.)

Finishing Your Check

Ken Dryden:

Finishing your check" is so familiar a phrase it seems it must have been part of the original game. It wasn't. It means, as a checker, going after the puck carrier so that even if he makes a pass, you keep going and run into him, too late to stop the pass, but not too late to stop him from continuing up the ice with the play. This is allowed. Indeed, it's a strategy coaches insist upon. Yet if a player is hit before a pass gets to him, this is interference, and everyone agrees. Worse, "finishing your check" rewards the player who is too slow to reach the puck carrier in time, and penalizes the puck carrier who is quick enough to make the pass ahead of the checker. Worse, it puts in physical danger the puck carrier who has to deal with a checker coming at him at high speed, and the checker who has to deal with a puck carrier with his stick up to protect himself. Or worse, it encourages teammates of the puck carrier to take protection into their own hands and "obstruct." All this happened because coaches decided it was a good thing for players to go hard at a puck carrier, and referees got tired of reminding them it wasn't.

What would happen if "finishing your check" was understood as interference? If a checker faced the challenge of getting to the puck carrier in time, or risking a penalty? If a checker was made responsible for his speed, if he had to have it under control, able to go in fast enough to make the hit but slow enough to stop or veer off? To depend on the legality of personal choice, not on the illegality of "obstruction?"

We need to see hits from behind and hits to the head for what they really are. We need to see finishing a check for what it really is. These and other plays are not traditions of the game worthy of protection. They have brought danger to the game. They have hurt the game.

Priorities

The NHL cracks down on the most serious issue of the playoffs thus far.

...and they wonder why nobody takes them seriously.

It is over: Murray Stays; Clouston Goes

Wow. Get sick and want to be dead for three days and the world goes all to hell.

So. Briefly: I don't mind retaining Murray. I have been starting to think that the recent problem with the franchise has been higher up the foodchain than Murray is. And yes, the problem is that there really is only one seat higher up the organizational foodchain than the GM: the owner.

The GM ultimately works for the pleasure of the owner, and if the owner is convinced that we are one tweak away from winning it all, and he has particular tweaks he wants made -- well, that's what you as a GM do. You do your best to talk him out of it, sure, but at the end of the day, the owner's pleasure will carry the discussion.

I hope that Murry and Melnyk had a come-to-Jesus talk before the "dump salary" order that was issued in January. The current group of guys were clearly not going to get the job done, and the last four seasons have showed a steady decline in the franchise's fortunes.

Melnyk must have either come to Jesus or has decided that the rebuild is over and permitted Murray to see out this rebuild effort.

Or... Melnyk hasn't been the meddler this scenario makes him look like and Murray is responsible for the last four years of mediocrity. In which case, Melnyk is an idiot for retaining Murray. But frankly I don't see this as the most likely scenario. I think that Melnyk is no idiot, just a passionate fan who wants to see his team win, now, and happens to have the GM's private line.

Three years? I still think that's optimistic for a rebuild. It all depends if Melnyk is going to let Murray do his job.

Over to Coach Clouston. I don't think the problems on the ice were entirely his fault, but I don't think he is entirely blameless. When he swept in here a year and a half ago and turned around another hopeless season into a hopeless season with potential, I think we all got carried away. Frankly though the problems with the franchise have been much deeper than that, and that showed when everyone clearly stopped listening to him this year.

But the fact of the matter is, the players clearly did quit on Clouston, and many of those players remain.

Since this is a rebuild, and Clouston's contract is in fact up, now is an excellent moment to make this change.

So, in summary: I provisionally approve of both actions.