Officiating and rules are not about evening up the game.  If we wanted to
make things even, we could begin by assigning Ryan Miller, Dean Weasler and
Denver's duo larger nets than their opposing goalies.  After all, if those
goalies can't stop more shots than a weaker goalie, why shouldn't the
opposition have a better chance to beat them?

As a coach, your strategies are certainly 100% correct.  However, there is
no reason that the less talented team has to be given rules advantages to
stay in the game. Skill hockey is more entertaining to most people, but
winning is winning.  Utilizing what you have within the rules is how that
end is achieved.  Some teams have more to work with but don't always win.
That's why we don't play the games on paper.



-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 1:29 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: hockey culture


> From:         Richard Hungerford
> They and the "organizers" were a pathetic joke.  IMNSHO
>
I have experienced pathetic rigging, and there are two solutions to it.
First, you can be so much better than any other team, that you can not only
overcome the other team, but the refs and organizers. (quit laughing).
Second, you can just not show up the next time invited, and communicate by
word for mouth the poor product delivered by the organizers. Hit them where
it hurts -- in the pocketbook.

But as a coach, I have to very much disagree with this idea that
fast-skating/quick-passing hockey is "better". If I have a fast, skilled
team, then that is what the team will do. Wasting their time with clutching
and grabbing is unproductive compared to the productivity of skating and
passing. However, if I am given a big, slow, tough team, then we will play
clutch-and-grab because, if successful at this strategy, we will be more
productive than if we try to skate fast, which is not our comparative
advantage. To force a team to skate and pass when they do not have the
ability or gifts to do so is incorrect and not better.

Clearly, what is being produced above is wins. If what the coach is
producing is skilled hockey players, then the question is what skill. There
is not a single answer (fast skating) to that question. Now, giving into
everyone's prejudices, I'd assume the more skilled team is better than the
clutch-and-grab team. Well, why not put the whistle away at the end of the
game? If the so-called better team has not distanced themselves from the
clutch-and-grab team, then let them stew in their own juices. Give the
underdog, struggling, yet competitive clutch-and-grab team a puncher's
chance at knocking off the fast skating team. Or is this rooting for the
underdog too American?

Nathan Hampton