What the ... rule change?!?!?

I have been rereading "The Montreal Canadiens: 100 Years of Glory" by D'Arcy Jenish, that my best friend Stig gave me one Christmas. It was put together from newspaper stories and some other 1st hand sources. Fantastic read. But I digress.

In the chapter about the 1955-1964 Seasons I read a bit about the effect of the 2 Minute Penalty being changed. Until 1956 a player had to remain in the penalty box for the FULL 2 minutes. That is what happens now for a 5 minute penalty. It was changed after the 1955-56 Season basically because the Canadiens were unstoppable.

The Canadiens were a force to recon with back then. They dominated the NHL. The players were so talented that their third and fourth lines could be a 1st line on other teams. Keep in mind there were only 6 teams in the NHL then. The Canadiens frequently scored multiple goals on one power play. One of the most famous incidents happened on November 5, 1955, Jean Béliveau scored three goals in 44 seconds, all on the same power play, resulting in a 4–2 victory over the Boston Bruins.

In the book it is put forth as a means of teh other teams to keep the Canadiens down. When other teams, like Detroit, dominated there was no talk of changing the rule but now that the canadiens are dominating it had to be changed. The Board of Governors, the owners of the other teams, outvoted the owner of the Canadiens and thus the rule was changed.

I am not one for conspiracy theories but it really looks like the change was done just to stop the Canadiens from dominating. Until then no one cared. Then it became important. Oh well. I am used to the rule as we know it now. My problem is with icing during a penalty. If a team is being penalized why the fuck are they allowed to ice the puck without play being sent back to their end?!?!?!?!?

Go Habs Go!

P.S. I LOVE this book. It was the best Christmas present anyone could have given me. If you are interested in the Canadiens it is a MUST read. Right up there with The Game by Ken Dryden. If you are interested nin the NHL and hockey it is a great read because it shows how the NHL started and has evolved.

Why does the NHL look stupid at times?

It is no wonder the NHL looks like it has idiots doing the discipline when decisions like the latest punishment to Rome were handed out. Granted, I believe Rome DOES deserve a suspension for what happened. But, if what Rome did was heinous enough to result in a 4 game suspension why didn't Chara's hit on Pacioretty in the regular season? This kind of inconsistency in delivering punishment is what makes the NHL officials look bad and gives fodder to the conspiracy theorists.

Aaron Rome (Vancouver) hit Nathan Horton (Boston) middle of the ice, a la Scott Stevens, after the puck was no longer in play. Definitely an interference penalty and deserving of extra suspension time. Horton is concussed and out for at least the rest of the season. While the hit evolved from a hockey play that happened quickly it was a late hit and did result in a horrible injury.

Talking about the incident and punishment Mike Murphy pointed out that it was a late hit, the puck wasn't in play (textbook interference penalty), he thought the head was hit, and the severity of the injury were all taken into account.

Zdano Chara (Boston) hit Max Pacioretty (Montreal) along the boards and pushed him head first into a stanchion, after the puck was no longer in play. Pacioretty is concussed, has cracked vertebrae in his neck (ie broken neck) and who can say if/when he will play hockey again. Definitely an interference penalty and deserving of extra suspension time, although NONE was give.

In the Chara-Pacioretty incident they never talked to Pacioretty or even considered the severity of his injury. The decision was handed down before they even knew how bad he was hurt.

This is where the conspiracy theorists now have ammunition when claiming the Bruins get special treatment. Why wasn't Chara's hit not punishment worthy yet Rome's was?

It still amazes me to hear my Nephew-In-Law whine about a league conspiracy to prevent the Bruins from winning the cup. I have always been a Habs fan but never as rabid as this. A bad hit is a bad hit. A bad call is a bad call. If you ignore one while whinging about the other you are a hypocrite.

The NHL itself just confuses the hell out of people over whet is or isn't wrong when they continue to hand out inconsistent penalties. Hopefully this will change when Campbell is gone as Head of Discipline, but I doubt it will.

Mind you, as rabid as NHL fans can be it is a good thing they aren't as bad as the South Koreans.

Chara not suspended longer than 1 game.

Wow. Chara only gets a one game suspension for the way he almost crippled Pacioretty. (Pacioretty has a concussion and fractured vertebrae.) At a time the League is saying it wants to clamp down on hits to the head, and Mario Lemieux is whining about it, that is all Chara gets?

NHL Senior VP of Hockey Operations Mike Murphy said;

After a thorough review of the video I can find no basis to impose supplemental discipline. This hit resulted from a play that evolved and then happened very quickly -- with both players skating in the same direction and with Chara attempting to angle his opponent into the boards. I could not find any evidence to suggest that, beyond this being a correct call for interference, that Chara targeted the head of his opponent, left his feet or delivered the check in any other manner that could be deemed to be dangerous.

Hmmm ... it looks like Chara's hand/fist is guiding Pacioretty's head into the stanchion to me. Now I am not an NHL Official with lots of experience but that doesn't look like a check that came late to me. What was it Murphy said?

I could not find any evidence to suggest that, beyond this being a correct call for interference, that Chara targeted the head of his opponent, left his feet or delivered the check in any other manner that could be deemed to be dangerous.

No evidence? Hand guiding head into stanchion. Correct me if I am wrong but a check is shoulder/hip contact. Your elbow, hands, or knees, getting involved make it a bad/illegal check.

Whether it is a good hit gone bad or not it sure looks like more than a 1 game suspension. I figured he would get 3-5 extra games ... but none? The decision also ignored the fact that Chara was gunning for Pacioretty after an incident 2 games ago.

Then there was this comment;

In reviewing this play, I also took into consideration that Chara has not been involved in a supplemental discipline incident during his 13-year NHL career.

So, because he has had a relatively clean nose so far that precludes him from doing something wrong or negligent? What a bunch of icetards.

I hope Pacioretty recovers and is able to continue playing hockey. I hate to see anyone's career ruined that way.

Added later: There is a GREAT post about this on another blog, The H Does NOT Stand For Habs. In the comment section someone posted the following quote from Colin Campbell after Ovetchkin's suspension last year.

If you cause a player to be injured, then you have to be responsible for the play that you're involved in, if there's any carelessness or recklessness in it.

And this incident was different just because Chara never had any supplemental punishment before?

Ice Hockey Rules

CBC sports recently posed an interesting question on their website. What NHL rules would you change or tweak?

There is one rule I have thought was stupid for as long as I have been interested in hockey. When your team is penalized you are allowed to ice the puck.

For those who know little to nothing about hockey, icing is when you shoot the puck from your end of the ice down to the other end. If the other team touches it first it is icing and there is a face off back in your end.

Currently, when a team has a penalty, whether a 2 minute or 5 minute, they can ice with impunity. Play goes on. So, all a penalized team has to do is get possession of the puck and dump it into the other end. It gives them a chance to rest for a few seconds, make changes, and/or get their defense lined back up.

Isn't the whole purpose of a penalty to PUNISH the team for a member breaking a rule? Of course it is. So why punish them on one hand but give them a bonus on the other? If you ice the puck while killing a penalty it SHOULD be called and the face off should be back in your end.