NHL head shot policy not working

Damien Cox

thestar.com


You can deplore the hit Tom Kostopoulos laid on Brad Stuart, breaking the veteran Detroit defenceman’s jaw, as a totally unnecessary bit of hockey violence.

At the same time, however, you can also understand the stance taken by the Calgary Flames, Kostopoulos’s employers, who have vehemently argued that the veteran winger did nothing wrong under the rules of the NHL to deserve a penalty, let alone a six-game suspension.

The fact that you can agree with both of these stances on this incident tells you all you need to know about the NHL’s current policy on head shots.

It’s not working. Nobody really understands it. The officials don’t know how to enforce it — Kostopoulos received a two-minute roughing minor in the game itself — and the players are uncertain as to what is and is not a legal hit.

In other words, after initially rushing through a rule during the season to deal with what was perceived to be an urgent problem, and then following up in the off-season with more detailed and binding legislation, the NHL has solved nothing.

Why? Well, primarily because it is still trying to be half-pregnant, or have its cake and eat it too, or whatever well-worn cliché you feel fits best.

It wants to penalize head shots, but not all head shots (this starts to get a little Orwellian after a while — you know, all head shots are equal, but some are more equal than others).

Instead of moving to a zero-tolerance rule on hits to the head that would certainly have made a lot of sense given the league’s ongoing issues with brain injuries, the NHL tried to appease the dinosaur element by leaving certain types of head shots legal.

You remember all the chatter, right? We’re going to take all of the hitting out of the game, turn it into ballet, etc., etc. — the same old nonsense. This is the element of the hockey populace that embraces as an article of faith the notion that if you make the mistake of skating with the puck with your head down, you essentially deserve whatever terrible thing happens to you.

Gotta keep your head up, right?

So, in their wisdom, the GMs concocted, and the governors approved, a scheme under which blindside and lateral head shots would be illegal, but “north-south” head hits would be ruled legal. So a puck-carrier with his head down could be concussed into tomorrow by a heavy shoulder check and everybody would say that was okay.

Except that’s what Kostopoulos did. And everyone isn’t okay with it, specifically the NHL and chief hangman Colin Campbell.

Stuart was swatting at a puck in his feet and Kostopoulos came roaring into the scene. Stuart’s head was either down or not focused on the incoming danger, and Kostopoulos, without jumping or raising his elbow, caught Stuart on the jaw.

No blindside. No lateral blow. North-south. No elbow. No jump.

And a six-game suspension resulted. No wonder the Flames and Kostopoulos are ticked. They presumably thought they understood the league’s ridiculous head shot policy and were simply skating right through the loophole provided.

Now to any reasonable person that kind of hit shouldn’t be part of the game. But the NHL managers and governors specifically decided they wanted it to be, at least until someone was seriously injured.

Which brings us to the Sidney Crosby concussion, the one that was inflicted by either David Steckel or Victor Hedman. There are some who actually believe Steckel tried to deliver a head blow to the Pittsburgh star in the Winter Classic, although it sure looked like the Washington forward was trying a lot harder to get out of the way as Crosby curled right into him.

But really, it’s just another head shot and another intense debate over who’s at fault, another instance of how the absence of a zero-tolerance policy on head shots is at the root of this entire problem.

If any hit to the head resulted in a major, a game misconduct and a suspension, there wouldn’t be any debate, would there? You get caught knocking an opponent in the melon, it’s your fault. Sort of the antithesis of the “keep your head up” mentality.

But the only one that will truly work.

Go back to Joe Thornton’s two-game suspension for nailing David Perron of the Blues back on Nov. 4. The Sharks screamed bloody murder over losing Thornton for two games. Perron, however, still isn’t back, the brain trauma he suffered in the hit was so severe.

So where’s the justice? And was anyone satisified by the application of the new rule?

Drew Doughty was concussed by a head shot delivered by Erik Cole in October and missed six games. Cole wasn’t suspended, and while Doughty has returned he hasn’t been the same player he was last year.

The rule isn’t working. The NHL just doesn’t want to admit it. Yet.

So expect the concussions to keep on coming.

P.K. Subban benching a shame as NHL conformity wins out

Cam Cole
Vancouversun.com


There are few absolutes in life, but one is that if you are involved in the quaint sport of ice hockey and have somehow attracted the attention of the Huffington Post, you are about to cross the line from non-entity to laughingstock, if not pariah.

Otherwise, why would the giant U.S. online news blog waste valuable web space on you? So it was when, in the middle of a TSN panel discussion on the trials and tribulations of Montreal Canadiens' recently-benched rookie defenceman P.K. Subban (who is black), former NHL goalie Darren Pang (who is not) suggested that the flamboyant Subban might try to emulate St. Louis's Alex Pietrangelo and do things on and off the ice “the white way.”

He quickly corrected it to “right way,” but it was too late. Within seconds, the slip of the tongue was being YouTube'd and Twittered and hooted at, and a mortified Pang — who is about a million miles from being any kind of racist — was issuing mea culpas and calling Subban to apologize, and generally turning himself inside out in embarrassment.

Beyond the furor, though, totally invisible to the amused viewers and long-distance critics of a guy they don't even know, is the really sad aspect of what Pang was saying.

The crime of which Subban was so guilty that his benching required a TSN panel to analyze it? He had resisted hockey's No. 1 law: conform or sit.

He was quotable. He was fun-loving. He was cocky. He chirped at opposing players more famous than himself. He refused to bow and kiss the hems of their robes just because he was a rookie. He drew the ire of Sidney Crosby and Mike Richards and eventually — though he was playing like a Calder Trophy candidate most nights — this outrageous non-conformity of his could no longer be tolerated by the world's dullest hockey coach, Jacques Martin.

So off to the Habs' press box went P.K. Subban, and let that be a lesson to him.

When he returns, hopefully it will be with no personality at all. Never will he speak another interesting thought, if he knows what's good for him. He will spout cliches in the style of Jason Spezza or Richards or Dion Phaneuf or, yes, Ryan Kesler — and when asked what he has learned from his benching, he will say: “It's not about me, it's about the team.”

He will remain black on the outside, but as colourless, for all that, as everyone else in a game that has pretty much hammered all individuality out of its players, and values vanilla above all other flavours.

Talkativeness is held to be a character flaw in hockey, and our juniors learn this before they've ever set foot in the pros. Our heroes have been Bobby Orr, who preferred not to speak at all, Wayne Gretzky, who was pleasant but instinctively uncontroversial, Mario Lemieux — who hid from the public until he needed help building his arena, then quickly ducked back under cover — and now Sid The Kid, whose next verbal revelation will be his first.

Players like Jeremy Roenick and Brett Hull and Chris Chelios, who had things to say and didn't hold back, were not only a dying breed, they were always viewed with suspicion by hockey's conservative establishment. Probably because we media guys loved them.

Then, too, they were all Americans, and American individuality is notoriously more difficult to trample beneath an iron boot.

A Canadian who expresses himself at length is apt to be labelled a clubhouse lawyer (Willie Mitchell's burden) or at least a selfish, non-team player (see Shane O'Brien) if not downright weird (Kyle Wellwood).

This behavioural law is occasionally waived in non-traditional hockey markets, where something more than the game itself is needed to sell tickets and players' personalities are reluctantly cultivated in aid of marketing.

But not in our country. It takes years — often well past the age of 30 — for even outstanding NHL players toiling in Canada to feel secure enough to emerge from their cocoons and venture an honest opinion or two.

That's why, if you are scoring at home, you will see that most of the interesting quotes in the paper, or on TV, are not coming from those young stars the league is (paradoxically) so keen to promote, but from secure veterans who are beyond caring whether someone, somewhere might conceivably take a remark the wrong way.

Europeans have frequently been quirky enough (Mikael Samuelsson) or goofy enough (Petr Klima's “You need a long stick to score from the bench”) or mangle the language badly enough (Esa Tikkanen's “We need to play like a team, right now we're just playing with ourselves”) to provide good material — or just too darned pleasant to say no, like Teemu Selanne — but they are forgiven because they're from faraway lands, and you know how those foreigners are.

The Guy Carbonneaus, the Craig MacTavishes, the Rob Blakes have always been rarities, and it's no accident that most of the old-school guys who have filled reporters' notebooks with cogent thoughts over the years have eventually gravitated to TV panels like the one that Darren Pang found himself on the other night.

No one ever asked Bobby Orr or Gordie Howe or Wayne Gretzky or Mario Lemieux to sit on a panel and light the place up with lively chatter. And no one will ever ask Crosby.

Somehow, they've always known that adjectives are someone else's job. Colour is not a personal trait much admired by the Canadian hockey fan, for whom team is everything and sticking one's head above the crowd is considered rude.

That is the lesson of P.K. Subban.

Conform or sit. He'll conform.

Such a shame.

The freedom to combat the crazies

Bruce Arthur

Nationalpost.com


Between Wikileaks and Don Cherry’s noble quest to shame the world’s bicycle-riding, bottom-of-the-barrel-scraping, pinko left-wing kooks, it has been quite the week for freedom of speech. And hey, it’s part of what makes modern democracy great, along with the nachos.

That being said, it can be both exhausting, and exhausted. Take Baltimore Orioles outfielder Luke Scott, for instance. Not literally, because he would likely start babbling about black helicopters and The Manchurian Candidate, and he would likely be packing some serious heat. Scott gave an interview to Yahoo’s baseball blog, “Big League Stew,” in which he detailed his enthusiasm for hunting and guns, his corresponding admiration for Ted Nugent and, oh by the way, his belief that President Barack Obama was not born in America.

“There’s no one here in America swimming the Pacific Ocean — or the Atlantic, or the Caribbean — to leave this place. The reason why is because of the freedom,” Scott said. “Freedom for a man to mark out his own destiny … Obama, he doesn’t represent that.

“He was not born here,” Scott added, helpfully.

This caused a predictable firestorm, with the Orioles having to put out a statement that essentially read, “Luke’s not with us, aside from the baseball-playing part, and Obama was elected President.” Thanks, fellahs. And now surely Scott will be ceaselessly asked about the probably false beliefs he holds, as do between a quarter and a third of some of your less-than-sharp Americans. Eventually, like John Rocker before him, he will refuse to talk about it, and become manifestly less interesting, if not manifestly less wrong.

And that is what we do, in the media. We ask question after question, and when somebody actually strides beyond the clichés and says something really honest — maybe crazy and laughable, but honest — we descend in a horde, disseminating every syllable, debating the controversy like seagulls swarming a dead fish on the beach. It’s the business.

This is what happened when Don Cherry swooped down on Toronto’s City Hall for Rob Ford’s mayoral swearing-in like your basic half-senile grandpa, grousing about pinkos and their bicycles, left-wing pinko newspapers, left-wing pinkos in general, and closed with “put that in your pipe, you left-wing kooks.” Ol’ Don was festooned with a breathtaking pink suit, naturally. Clever.

This was all ridiculous, of course — many a Torontonian must be distressed to learn that they are communists for owning a Schwinn — but Cherry has made a fine career of such free speech on Hockey Night in Canada, where the taxpayers have been paying him to become a parody of himself, a cartoon in more than simply wardrobe, railing against boogeymen and Euros and left-wingers and visors while wearing an impressive set of blinders himself. As The Hockey News’ Adam Proteau put it the other day, Don is like Canada’s version of the Confederate Flag — to some, a symbol of good; to others, a beacon of bigotry and exclusion.

Now the complaints won’t cause the CBC to reconsider his employment, surely, though a truly unfortunate on-air moment is likely in the mail, sooner or later. For Cherry, of course, your basic unfortunate remarks are part of the shtick; for most athletes, coaches and executives, they’re land mines. Some guys are unafraid to say what they think, and never back down from it — think Charles Barkley, or Jeremy Roenick, or the two Montreal Alouettes who alleged a CFL conspiracy to help the Saskatchewan Roughriders win the Grey Cup. Matthieu Proulx and Étienne Boulay said that, and said it again the next day while engulfed by the seagull hordes, and that was that.

Then you have guys like Tampa Bay Lightning goaltender Dan Ellis, driven from Twitter for complaining about his money problems. (That led to the launching of the Fake Dan Ellis account, which periodically airs mocking complaints like, “My drawbridge is stuck.”) Or Steve Nash, who wore an anti-war T-shirt to the 2003 NBA All-Star Game, and has spent the better part of his time since then deftly avoiding politics, simply because it became a distraction. Or the vast legions of cliché-spewing athletes — hockey and baseball players, more than most — who find it most profitable not to become overly interesting.

So yes, pouncing on every single slightly controversial statement with the fury of piranhas may cause athletes to clam up, keep it simple, decide to just give 110% and tell us all about it. There should be, even as the media environment lurches further into chaos, a certain amount of perspective. Not everything interesting is a scandal. Dan Ellis is good for laughs, but he’s not a monster.

That being said, to say we should just dismiss the Luke Scotts and Don Cherrys of the world is a ridiculous notion. Not Obama-is-The-Manchurian-Candidate ridiculous, but ridiculous.

When FIFA president Sepp Blatter says “I’ll say it clearly: there is no systematic corruption at FIFA. That’s nonsense,” it should perhaps be pointed out that this is approximately as accurate a statement as saying the moon is made of fruit juice. When NHL commissioner Gary Bettman says prospective Phoenix Coyotes owner Matthew Hulsizer “thinks Phoenix is a terrific market and he thinks a well-run team with identifiable ownership can do very well there,” it’s fine to say that Matt Hulsizer must also think an NHL team would do just fine in Ulaanbaatar, or perhaps on the moon.

Falsehoods cannot go unchallenged. Crazy people should be corrected. Don Cherry should not be treated like your half-drunk grandfather at Thanksgiving, telling the kids about the good old days when Joe McCarthy was showing the Yanks what’s what, because in Canada people actually listen to him. Whatever the form of response — scorn, derision, satire, parody, half-based newspaper columns, or just good old-fashioned facts — a response is better than nothing.

On that note, feel free to email in and complain to this pinko rag about its pinko sports columnist, with his left-wing pinko pipe. I’ll probably be busy trying to undermine Canadian capitalism by riding my bike, but I’ll get back to you.

Book claims NHL discriminates against non English-speaking Canadians

The Canadian Press

globeandmail.ca

A retired NHLer claims the league discriminates against players who aren't English-speaking Canadians and he alleges in a new book that teams systematically shut the door on others.

Bob Sirois writes in his book, Discrimination in the NHL: Quebec Hockey Players Sidelined, that Quebecers, Europeans, and Americans all face systemic bias in the league.

He says the statistics support his claim.

Some of those numbers are included in the English-language translation of his controversial book — released Monday, one year after its original French version came out.

Sirois writes that at equal talent, a Canadian Anglo will always get the job over another player.

The book was initially written in French as a sort of reference guide for those die-hard hockey fans, particularly in Quebec, who are preoccupied by the league's linguistic composition.

The debate over bias has existed in Quebec for decades but Sirois takes it further in the latest version of his book. He says the practice also hurts players from Scandinavia to Syracuse.

“The NHL is a league of English Canadians who allow the best players from all nations to play in their league,” Sirois said in an interview.

“But when it comes to equal talent or comparable talent . . . they always choose a good ol' Canadian boy.”

Sirois said that's because stereotypes and clichés attributed to players from certain countries have continued to exist: French-Canadian players are too small or one-dimensional, Europeans won't get physical and U.S. college players can't withstand a gruelling NHL schedule.

He points to the numbers: about 465,000 youth play hockey in the U.S. versus about 400,000 in Canada, a trend that's been apparent for a decade.

But last year, Canadians accounted for 400 NHL players compared to just 189 Americans.

“They are discriminated against too,” said Sirois.

The NHL did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

As for his fellow Quebecers, Sirois says there are only 42 playing in the NHL this year.

Part of the problem lies in scouting, he says. A third of NHL teams don't have a scouting presence in Quebec — so mid-level talents have trouble getting noticed as a result, according to Sirois.

He says the only way to change the situation is greater visibility.

The ex-NHL forward said two things could help the fortunes of Quebec players: the return of the NHL to Quebec City and the opportunity for Quebec to field a separate team at the world junior championships.

That's where the book gets particularly political.

Citing Prime Minister Stephen Harper's assertion that Quebec is a nation, Sirois said it should then follow that Quebec have its own entry at the tournament — a showcase for the best young players in the world.

He says that the majority of Quebec players don't get a fair shake in the selection process, something that could be solved by letting the province have its own team.

“We're the only nation that isn't allowed to participate in the world junior championships, to measure ourselves against the Finns, the Swedes, the Russians, the Canadians as to give our young players visibility,” Sirois said.

“Right now, (about two) Quebec players are represented on the Canadian junior teams.”

But Hockey Canada says any decision on national entries would have to come from the International Ice Hockey Federation — and the organization has a policy of one team per country.

As for Canada's team, it says the only goal is to assemble the best possible squad.

“At the end of the day Hockey Canada is all about winning gold medals,” said Scott Salmond, the group's senior director of hockey operations.

Salmond said the organization has a full-time scout in Kevin Prendergast, who travels the country as part of the selection process. In some years, he said, the final roster hasn't included anyone from Manitoba, Saskatchewan or the Maritimes.

“There's absolutely no reason to leave any player off our roster that can help us win,” Salmond said.

“There's only so many spots and it's Team Canada and we take the best players and I think that's the simplest answer.”

Sirois also thinks the return of the Quebec Nordiques could help more locals break into the league.

In particular, he says it would mean more jobs for the muckers and grinders who are often overlooked and wind up playing in Europe.

“It would create the same rivalry between Quebec and Montreal and the fans' association with local players is big in this province,” Sirois said.

Sirois dismisses claims that his books were nothing more than separatist rants, allegations he said were made following the 2009 release of his original book.

Sirois says he has no political leanings one way or the other.

“The facts are the facts.”

The suite life: Corporate Winnipeg ready to throw support behind potential NHL team

Paul Friesen

slam.canoe.ca


Much of the debate about whether or not Winnipeg could support an NHL franchise has been guess work.

Economic experts saying this, the man on the street saying that and people believing what they want.
For example, would a team here have enough corporate support?
Instead of guessing, we decided to find out.
The results, like a rising slapshot from the unknown rookie, caught us off guard.
A series of interviews suggests Winnipeg’s business community is waiting, chequebook in hand, for the chance to make an NHL team here viable.
The Sun contacted about one-third of the luxury suite holders at MTS Centre, and 17 of the 25 executives we reached said they would renew their suites at our predicted NHL price, which is triple the current rate.
Three more said they’d reduce their portion of their suites but stay involved, while three said they weren’t sure.
Just two of the 25 said the high price tag would force them out of the game.
“There is a high level of excitement about the return of an NHL team,” Carol Paradine, managing partner with accounting firm Deloitte, said. “We do have suites in most of our major market places and this probably wouldn’t be any different.”
Even though the yearly cost of leasing a suite is expected to soar from an average of around $60,000 to $180,000 (private suites in Edmonton start at around $150,000).
“I’ve heard people say it’s a lot of money, but they’d still do it,” David MacAngus, president of Winnipeg Building and Decorating, said. “It slipped away once before, and I don’t think corporate Winnipeg wants to see it happen again.”
Many firms, like the two noted above, already share luxury boxes with other companies, a practice that would likely increase in the pricey world of the NHL.
“I’m pretty sure we would scale back what percentage we have there today,” said Curtis Wyatt of Wyatt Dowling Insurance, which splits a suite, 50-50, with a partner.
That scale back, though, could be made up in new corporations jumping on the big-league bandwagon.
“A lot of people who don’t have a suite today would reconsider if the NHL came back,” Wyatt said.
Charlie Spiring of Wellington West Capital agrees.
“There will be a changeover,” Spiring said. “But it will be a layup.”
With Spiring going up for an early slam dunk.
“We will be the first to sign up.”
He may have some competition.
MTS, Keystone Ford, Princess Auto, Maple Leaf Construction, W.K. Chan Jewellers, Carlyle Printing, the Winnipeg Sun, Qualico Homes, Manitoba Blue Cross and Lazer-Grant, a local accounting and business advisory service, were among the companies vowing to beef up their contributions.
“Certain concerts have huge demand and it has great value for us,” Derek Johannson, chairman of Carlyle Printing, said. “My sense is the NHL would be the same. It’s certainly a leap of faith at the start. Probably we would take that leap of faith.
“Talking to our customers, there is tremendous excitement and anticipation.”
Business types generally use their suites to woo clients and reward employees. So it’s a perk, but one with potential financial rewards.
“Our guys are big hockey fans,” Blake Fitzpatrick, co-owner of Maple Leaf Construction, said. “It’s our way of entertaining our guys.”
But even Fitzpatrick acknowledges there are limits.
And two of the executives we talked to said tripling the price would force them out.
“We’d probably sell it,” said Elite Communications boss Scott Greer, who shares a suite with three others. “It’s expensive. Probably too expensive for what our benefit would be. We’re pushing it right now. We’re a relatively small company on the Winnipeg landscape.”
Greer says he’d love to see the NHL return, but just isn’t sure it would be sustainable, long-term.
One executive, choosing to remain anonymous, went one step further, saying Winnipeg is actually better off without the NHL because people can better spread their money around.
“There’s no way we could continue,” he said of his company’s suite lease. “Most of us here don’t really want the NHL. I just can’t see the building selling out on a Wednesday in the middle of January.”
But the vast majority are watching the clock with anticipation, counting down the days and months — maybe years, considering it looks like the Phoenix Coyotes are staying put — until that first NHL faceoff.
One hand holding a Jets pom-pom, the other their wallet.
“There would be sticker shock,” John Daniels of Qualico said. “And then support.”
WORDS FROM THE SUITES
“Winnipeg is a big-league city. And there’s a lot of quiet money out there that a lot of people don’t realize.”
— Bob Kozminski, Keystone Ford
“Everybody talks about head offices, but it’s not just head offices. (We have) many companies with a presence across Canada.”
— Blake Fitzpatrick, Maple Leaf Construction
“It’s certainly a leap of faith at the start. Probably we would take that leap of faith.”
— Derek Johannson, Carlyle Printing
“There’s a strong chance we’d support it the first three years and then evaluate it.”
— Anonymous executive
“It slipped away once before, and I don’t think corporate Winnipeg wants to see it happen again.”
— David MacAngus, Winnipeg Building and Decorating
“We’ll support it. However, we’d like to support it at double (the current price, not triple).”
— Joel Lazer, Lazer-Grant
“Most of us here don’t really want the NHL. The city has become better since the Jets left.”
— Anonymous executive
“The city’s got a big sticker shock coming.”
— Anonymous executive
“There will be sticker shock. And then support.”
— John Daniels, Qualico Homes

What was the point of the Macintyre-Ivanans fight?

Bob Mackenzie

Tsn.ca

Based entirely on the premise that it's never too early in the season to be called a pussy(cat), can someone please explain to me the purpose/meaning/significance of the Steve MacIntyre smackdown of Raitis Ivanans last night in Edmonton?

  

Now, I get that Oiler fans were almost as (maybe more?) titillated by MacIntyre's knockout punch on Ivanans with 2:40 left in the third period, when the homeside was already up 4-0. It was a vicious and powerful exclamation point on a night when the northern neighbour handed its southern rival its lunch in every way. I mean, the sight of Ivanans, bloodied and unable to get off the ice under his own power, pretty much summed up the night for the Flames, didn't it?

I also get that fighting is part of hockey and, to varying degrees, always will be, but that doesn't mean I can, for the life of me, understand the point of the MacIntyre-Ivanans fight. I can't honestly say I would feel as strongly about it if Ivanans hadn't been brain damaged in the scrap -- and not to put too fine a point on it, but that is precisely what happened. But I still don't get the point.

Oh, I know all the tried and true rationales for it.

Ivanans was sending a message that the Flames weren't going to go down without a fight. Though go down the Flames and Ivanans did.

Whether Ivanans was running around in the third period -- he hit Gilbert Brule and knocked him out of the game midway through the third -- to send a message for the next encounter or whether he was doing that solely because he knew it would invite a response from MacIntyre, it was pretty much ordained that Ivanans and MacIntyre were going to dance before this game was over. From the Oiler perspective, MacIntyre was defending the honour of his team.  He, too, was sending a message -- mess with our young players and I'll mess with you.

The two heavyweights were just doing their job.

And heaven knows I'm not faulting either guy, per se, as they were only doing what they've effectively been bred (in the professional hockey sense) to do, and it's a hard job, and a damn dangerous one because I am convinced in this relatively new era of super heavyweight fighters in the NHL it's only a matter of time until someone suffers a catastrophic injury in a hockey fight. (As a side note, noted author Malcom Gladwell did a controversial piece in the New Yorker magazine where he made a case that professional football was not dissimilar to dog fighting although I often wonder if Gladwell, a Canadian, couldn't have drawn more parallels between dog fighting to the culture of hockey heavyweights that starts as early as the teen years in Canada, but that, trust me, is another story for another day).

I also understand the Edmonton fans, and many watching from elsewhere, being excited by what they saw when MacIntyre KOed Ivanans, at least once they saw Ivanans was able to get up and off the ice.

Human beings are complex individuals and why the sight of two grown men beating the daylights out of each other can be stimulating is something I'm not equipped to explain. But I do get it. Or, at least, in some circumstances, I feel it.

I'm not proud of the incongruities of someone who rails against shots to the head -- that would be me -- being a fan of mixed martial arts (MMA) and the UFC, but I am. Go figure. Some things in life just can't be explained.

Now, I can make a case there's a lot more to the MMA and UFC than punching someone's lights out. I mean, Georges St. Pierre is a marvelous athlete who uses as much, if not more, brain/strategy/technique as muscle/brawn. But who's kidding who? It's still, in its most base form, two guys trying to kick the crap out of each other and prepared to do serious physical harm to one another.

So I don't try to make myself any better or worse than the many hockey fans, especially in Edmonton, who took great pleasure in seeing MacIntyre first bloody, then knock out Ivanans. But the one distinction I will make is this: In the UFC, the point of the fight is the fight. That is the essence of it. It's the whole gladiator thing, which is probably as old as humanity.

I don't think you can say the same thing about MacIntyre-Ivanans, can you? Really?

I mean, the point of hockey is to use speed, skill, hitting and yes, in some instances, fighting to score more goals than the other team.

I have never been a black and white guy when it comes to fighting in hockey. Some abolitionists will be disappointed to hear that. The pro-fighting crowd won't care because anyone who dares question anything about fighting in hockey is a pussy(cat).

Having played the game (not very well and only to age 20 or so, aside from the odd beer league game here or there), I get that it can be such an emotional game that things sometimes spill over and the gloves come off. And I'm fine with that. That's a hockey fight - I totally understand.

I also understand the age-old issue of "regulation" and how the threat of being beaten up should, in theory, moderate the behaviour of the players, although in the increasing age of the Rat Factor, there are more and more players who will engage in aberrant behaviour (hits from behind, cheap shots, head shots, stick fouls, whatever) and simply not answer the bell or not feel overly threatened by the fight factor.

Or a player will be such a good and willing fighter that he can hit people from behind , do basically whatever he wants, and welcomes the opportunity to drop the gloves, in which case fighting is no deterrent at all to "unacceptable" behaviour. And I'm not saying there's no place for a fighter in hockey because on a young team like the Oilers, protecting Eberle, Hall and Paajarvi is a legitimate concern.

But this specific MacIntyre-Ivanans bout? I In spite of the rationalizations -- Ivanans was going after the Oilers' young players and that's why MacIntyre fought him -- it had nothing to do with anything meaningful in the game.  It was all part of an orchestrated dance that was set the motion the minute the Flames dressed Ivanans and the Oilers dressed MacIntyre. Yet it seems there are almost as many people talking today about the fight as the Eberle goal. And forgive me for saying this, but that's @$%^*@!

I just don't get it. The game was out of reach, over for all intents and purposes.

These two guys were merely justifying their existence. For me, it was simply a sideshow  and it was happening whether Ivanans hit Brule or not. Let's face it, in any NHL game where one heavyweight is dressed for each team, the odds of them going are awfully high.

And I suspect the only rationale or defence for it anyone can come up with is: a) the Flames were trying to send a message,  to which the Oilers had no choice but to respond and b) these guys are an important part of the team and fighting is an intrinsic part of our game.

To which I would say: a) If the Flames really want to send a message, they should try scoring a goal, and b) the fighters are so important that when the games actually mean something in the playoffs, it's highly likely they won't even be dressed.

Like I said, never too early in the season to be called a pussy(cat).

New NHL rules on hits to the head

MLSE can sell, but doesn’t know how to win

Steve Simmons
Canoe.ca

"Winning is everything in Sports and it's what we believe in.
It's our vision
It's what we do and why we're here
It's in our DNA and it drives us every day
It's at the heart of our objectives and strategies
Our four core values are rock solid and and how we play to win
There rules of the game don't change
There are no time outs"
-- motto of Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment Ltd.

It is almost unexplainable -- the disconnect that exists between the success of Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment Ltd., as a business and the lack of success of its sporting franchises.

How can MLSEL be so smart, yet so dumb?

How can a company be so financially successful, yet nowhere to be found in the standings of their games?

"The last few years have been tough," said Tom Anselmi, the chief operating officer of MLSEL. "We don't like losing. We're all competitive people. We all want to win. Our owners have said: 'Let's have the best people in place' and that's what we're doing. That's why we made the changes (with Toronto FC) yesterday. You have to have the right people in place."

The stories have always been out there, of MLSEL interference, of making it a difficult place for general managers to work, of caring more for profit than victory.

Anselmi has heard all the stories and discounts them with a laugh of frustration.

"That's totally not true," he said. "We want to win. We've heard the same things you've heard. It's crazy. Why the hell wouldn't we want to win? I want to win more than anybody. Bryan Colangelo wants to win. Our owners want to win. Larry Tanenbaum has never lost at anything in his life. Why would he not want to win? He wants to win them all (championships).

"We're all fans. The notion we don't want to win is ridiculous, crazy."

The measurables, however, tell a different story, one of frustration for Toronto fans and owners and employees at MLSEL. The Maple Leafs, 29th out of 30 teams, lead the NHL in revenue. The Raptors, out of the playoffs the past two years, are top 10 in NBA revenue and, even after losing their best player, Chris Bosh, were stunned when season ticket renewals were 10% ahead of team expectations. Toronto FC, having never experienced a playoff game in Major League Soccer, is second in the league in attendance.

MLSEL can sell. The business -- four teams, an arena, three television networks, condos, the world's greatest sports bar, and more -- is incredible. No business in Toronto gives more back to the community and maybe no business asks for more in return.

But what it can't do is win and the question is: Why?

Brian Burke offers up a straight answer. "The personnel people, like me, haven't got the job done," he said. "No one tries to lose. I take full responsibility for this hockey club from the day I got here."

Burke also insists that none of the board interference, or problems that may have plagued others in the past, have been evident in any way to him.

"I have had zero interference with what I do and total moral and financial support," said Burke. "We have as nice a rink as any in the league. Our practice rink is the best in the league. We travel first class, stay at first-class hotels and are the only NHL team to have the luxury of having its farm team in Toronto. Ownership has given us everything to win. If we don't win, it's our fault.

"I was warned about the board interfering before I came here. I can tell you that, in 24 months, it's never happened once. I can't talk for Bryan (Colangelo) or anyone else. I'm lucky. I have a great boss. We have great owners (Teachers' Pension Fund, Tanenbaum and TD Bank). I'm proud to work for MLSEL. I have the best job in hockey but I have to get it done."

MLSEL has altered its approach to running its teams in recent years. Where once, boss Richard Peddie attempted to hire inexperience on the cheap -- general managers such as John Ferguson and Rob Babcock and maybe Mo Johnston -- he since has gone in the other direction, without a lot more success.

Colangelo was given the keys to the Raptors franchise and has hardly navigated a winning way. Burke begins his second real season in charge of a very vulnerable Leafs team, that, like the Raptors, may be hard-pressed yet again to qualify for the playoffs next spring. The previous inexperienced GMs set the franchise back. The current ones, while bolder and wiser, have not broken through to measure up to their lofty reputations.

"We haven't won enough the last five years," said Anselmi. "We have great fans. This is a great, deep, sophisticated market. If our teams aren't good, who you are and how you market doesn't matter. If you're not winning, you're not delivering the goods."

Leafs losing young fans to video games

Flames' flu vaccine saga 'not acceptable': Alberta health superboard

Flames' flu vaccine saga 'not acceptable': Alberta health superboard

Exhibition Ticket Prices Incomprehensible

FAN590 - Blogs - Nothing But Leafs � Blog Archive � Exhibition Ticket Prices Incomprehensible

Shared via AddThis

Healthy Habitant: Laraque happy to veg out

Sean Gordon
Globeandmail.com
September 15, 2009

First, the eyebrows arch quizzically, then the legend’s nose crinkles in disapproval.
“Ferguson never would have accepted it,” huffs Henri Richard, 11-time Stanley Cup champion, uber-competitor, the Pocket Rocket himself, speaking of John Ferguson, the former Montreal Canadiens tough guy.
It’s a natural enough reaction from a man whose off-season preparations used to consist of switching from golf to tennis in early August.
He has just been informed that Canadiens forward Georges Laraque, boulevardier, animal-rights activist and perhaps the most feared pugilist in the NHL, is a vegan (“a what?” Richard said), a militant one.
No dairy, no poultry, no fish, no more leather shoes or animal byproducts, Laraque has been on a strict diet of vegetables, fruits, grains and legumes since June 1.
While he says he was partly motivated to improve his health for the hockey season, Laraque insists the decision was made primarily for political, rather than nutritional, reasons.
Everything changed, Laraque said, after he saw Earthlings, a 2006 documentary that is widely celebrated in animal-rights circles.
“It’s unconscionable what’s happening to animals in this country and the way we treat animals we eat. … I realized I had to make some big changes,” Laraque said.
Though Laraque said he will no longer buy leather of any kind, he hasn’t rid his closet or hockey bag of previously purchased leather products because, “that would be a further waste. And this way I don’t forget.”
Laraque, who also does yoga daily, an activity he picked up as a member of the Edmonton Oilers, said he’s never felt better and reported for training camp at a comparatively svelte 245 pounds.
“I’ve lost some weight, but I’ve been working with a really great nutritionist and I’ve never had this much energy,” he said.
“I think it’s also important to break the stereotype that all vegans are skinny people with long hair,” added Laraque, as unlikely a supporter of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals as the NHL has ever seen. (This summer he sent a letter on the group’s behalf to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, protesting the Canadian seal hunt.)
Laraque couldn’t think of any other vegan NHLers off the top of his head.
But the burly winger finds himself among a vanguard of current and former pro athletes who are eschewing most meats.
Laraque cites Major League Baseball player Prince Fielder, former Olympic sprinter Carl Lewis, NFL tight end Tony Gonzalez and retired NBA player John Salley as vegetarians who inspired him.
Richard, who readily admits that he’s often astonished at the lengths to which today’s hockey players go to train, hails from an era when Guy Lafleur prepared for the season by cutting back from three packs of cigarettes a day to two, or so the legend goes. (“It didn’t matter, he was always faster than everyone,” Richard joked.)
And though Laraque is undoubtedly an outlier in the Canadiens dressing room and in the league, he’s not alone in his approach.
Mike Cammalleri, who joined the Habs as a free agent in the summer, strives to eat organic, fresh and local foods.
“I find it helps my energy levels stay high throughout the season,” he said.
Cammalleri also regularly practises Pilates and occasionally will throw in a few yoga exercises, “but I don’t really have the patience for yoga.”
Not all the Habs are in tune with the new ethos. Fourth-year forward Guillaume Latendresse, who has overhauled his off-season regimen in each of the past two seasons, says he switched to a high-protein diet, but that he’s not willing to renounce meat altogether.
“[Laraque] has invited us all out to a vegan restaurant … but if I go, I’m bringing a steak in my jacket pocket,” he joked.
So in a tough-guy, famously hidebound culture like pro hockey, Laraque remains a curiosity, but he’s resolved to carry on spreading the word.
“People still think it’s kind of funny, but I’m not doing this to be funny,” he said. “There are more puppy mills in Quebec than anywhere else in Canada, and no laws to shut them down. People get slapped with a fine and six months later they reopen. Do you think that’s funny?”