What I most enjoyed out of this message was the perspective from the
bench of one of the greatest games of the year, and also the food for
thought at the end regarding Shawn's suggestions for improving the
game. Some I agree with, some I do not. I was impressed that he took
the time to write such a long message - certainly not something he had
to do. I think it speaks to his dedication to the sport and
appreciation for those who try to advance it - something I think all
of us here do.
Shawn Walsh writes:
>I wanted to bring up the referees because I think when people like
>Tony and John put their passion into postings, not only are they
>potentially liable, but also they are carrying their school colors
>just a little far in making an opinionated statements about individuals.
My only comment on this is that believe it or not, folks, one of the
reasons HOCKEY-L was started was to break down some of these barriers
between fans of different schools, to help people appreciate the game
as a whole. I firmly believe that all too often, fans tend to think
that it's "us vs them" and the teams should hate each other with the
same intensity that the fans do. I've seen home fans boo when players
from opposing teams who know each other get together at center ice to
chat after a game has ended. And many fans are simply unable to
appreciate the fact that someone on the opposing team may have made a
great play.
BTW, I don't consider John and Tony representative of this, even though
they are mentioned by name above, because they've written boatloads
about players from all over, and I've met both and have seen their
appreciation for the game of college hockey.
On coaches, I suppose some would find it incomprehensible that Lowell
head coach Bruce Crowder sat with BU asst Blaise MacDonald at
Tuesday's Merrimack-BC game. As if the coaches should hate opposing
coaches the way the fans do! Some fans should show up an hour before
game time and notice how the opposing coaches are almost always
standing around, discussing various things ("how's the wife and
kids?"). These people do not see each other as competitors. They see
each other as peers. And I believe that's how most of the players see
opponents, too. After all, many of them grew up playing alongside
each other.
>1. We should put a shoot in. Imagine the electricity at BU on Saturday
>if we had five-man shoot out after that 0-0 tie. Look at how many ties
>there are now in college hockey. (Lowell has 7 already and we have 3
>in our last 4 games!). In the shoot out, just give the team that wins
>an extra point and the team that looses the shoot out the one point
>they would have had so that nobody gets hurt.
Although I'm against the shootout, I might accept it more easily if
the last sentence were part of the rule. My objection to a shootout is
simple: I don't think a game should be decided in a way that is
different from the way the game was meant to be played. A shootout
benefits a team that has a good offense. Nowhere does the defense
come into play, because they aren't allowed to defend the shootout.
That's unfair to a team that has earned a tie against a high-powered
opponent by virtue of having played stellar, swarming defense.
Offense is certainly part of the game, but so is defense.
Not long ago, I did a study of how the number of ties compared before
and after college hockey changed from 10 to 5-min OTs. I wish I could
find it, but I believe the conclusion was that there was no real
difference. About the same number of games were ties. So, it seemed
to make sense to shorten OT, back then anyway.
I have two suggestions I would prefer to a shootout:
1) Keep OT at 5 min, but change the points so that the winner (if there is
one) receives 2 pts and the loser receives 1. Like above.
2) Return OT to 10 min AND institute the point system described in 1).
#1 is intended to make OT exciting, up and down action with both teams
trying to win instead of not to lose. #2's big drawback is that
anything more than a 5-min OT requires the ice to be done again, and
with the intermission and OT, that could add as much as half an hour
or more to the game. Not an attractive measure to a game that is
still trying to shorten the length of its matches.
Finally, I wonder if Shawn is suggesting the shootout only be used in
league contests. Otherwise, I don't know how you'd score a shootout
loss in a nonleague game. Is it a loss, or a tie? Do we need four
columns for records now - wins, losses, shootout losses, ties? In
addition, I'd like to challenge his comment that by giving the loser
the one point they'd have had with a tie, nobody gets hurt...
Picture: last game of the season. Team A vs Team B, both are tied in
the standings but Team B leads the season series (and tiebreaker)
1-0-1. Game ends up tied after OT, Team A (with its better shooters
as compared to Team B's better defense) wins the shootout. Result is
that instead of the teams finishing tied in the standings and Team B
winning the tiebreaker 1-0-2, Team A picks up an extra point due to
the shootout and finishes one point ahead of Team B - no tiebreaker
necessary. It's an exciting finish, but is it really fair?
I also agree with the thought G.M. Finniss had, that a shootout by
itself isn't likely to affect interest or attendance. A shootout
isn't guaranteed every night, and since most teams seem to be
averaging about 2 tie games this season, that means that probably only
one out of every 15-17 games a team plays will end in a shootout. I
don't think it will affect interest other than being a curiosity like
the bearded lady at a circus, and do we really want college hockey to
become a spectacle like that? Kind of like the way much of the US
views the NHL?
I'll support 2 pts for an OT win and 1 for an OT loss. I still don't
support a shootout in any form.
>2. Bring back 4x4 and 3x3 hockey. It's great for the fans! And it opens
>up the ice because right now there is too much interference and the game
>can be clogged up even without the red line.
I'll agree with this. Earlier I posted my understanding of why the
coincidentals exist in college. I don't buy that as a reason, though.
The team was penalized; a player isn't being taken off just for the
heck of it. Else, take this another step and end power plays; just
have all players serve their penalties, but let substitution occur.
Why should the guy who would have taken the penalized player's
place be hurt? He didn't commit the penalty. Always have 5x5.
It's as valid (or invalid, depending on your point of view) an argument
as "letting more players play".
>3. Give the officials the discretion to call a game misconduct or simply
>a five minute major penalty on checking from behind into the boards, and
>slash or spearing, etc. Right now they can only call a game DQ on some
>of these offenses and so what happens is the referees don't want
>to hurt a player and cost him two games, so they just call it roughing,
>boarding, etc. Let's not kid ourselves, if a guy committed a major foul
>give him a major penalty and lets scrape the DQ's so the ref's aren't
>afraid to call it.
I think we're already seeing steps in this area. It used to be that
everything that got you a major also got you a DQ. Needless to say,
they were few and far between. Now, a referee can call a major on
some serious penalties without adding on the DQ - and I have seen it
called this way a number of times this year. I take Shawn's comments
to mean that he thinks this should be extended to cover all cases, and
allow the referees the discretion on whether or not to tack on a DQ.
I'll go along with that.
On the fighting calls: how about the following -
* Fighting in the final 5-10 minutes of a game (or after the game) gets
you an automatic DQ. (to prevent brawls when a game gets out of hand)
* Otherwise, it's a major and misconduct and discretionary DQ if the
referee thinks it was deserved.
So I suppose I agree here with some slight alterations.
>4. All fans and many coaches, myself included, need to remember that the
>referees are every bit as intense and caring about the game as coaches
>and players are.
:-) Did Shawn read my post from Tuesday? :-) I certainly agree.
Some others I would add:
* This will never happen, but I'd like to see college hockey move to
the Olympic sized ice surface across the board. It would be
impossible for many existing buildings, but perhaps it could be
encouraged for schools building new rinks.
* Point of emphasis on calling offensive interference when a player
charges a goaltender. This is happening more and more, and what
results is that a defenseman hammers the guy who ran the goalie - and
only the defenseman winds up in the box.
* Point of emphasis on leg checks. These are too dangerous to be
ignored any longer. Kids are being put out for weeks now (Kaj Linna),
and nothing happens to the player who did it.
* Either remove the rule on intentional offsides or start calling it
more often. This is the least called infraction in the game - it is
called perhaps 10% of the time. I suspect that is to keep the game
moving, but then why is it in the book? The reason this is a problem
is that it is ignored the 10 times or so that it happens during a
game, and then with a minute left it is suddenly called, moving a
faceoff all the way down the ice. You can almost see the jaws of the
players and coaches drop - "You're calling that NOW?"
* Change the rule that says fighting consists of throwing a single
punch. That's ludicrous and it is almost never called. One punch
should be roughing, as it is currently called.
* Finally, call the second most uncalled infraction - interference -
more often. Watch your games this weekend with an eye on this;
interference is becoming epidemic, and it needs to be emphasized.
Of course, if I was coaching I'd do some really wild things - like
have three 5-man units like the old Soviet teams instead of 4 lines
and 3 sets of D. Maybe someday... :-) (actually, my collegiate coaching
record is 0-1-0 - long story.)
--- ---
Mike Machnik [log in to unmask]
Cabletron Systems, Inc. *HMM* 11/13/93
<<<<< Color Voice of the (14-16-2) Merrimack Warriors WCCM 800 AM >>>>>
|
