Luiz Valente <[log in to unmask]> writes on INFO-HOCKEY-L:
>I'm well aware that the place for discussion is Hockey-L, not
>Info-Hockey. However Mike Machinik's post about the Brown-Merrimack
>game contained a few inaccuracies that must be clarified, as well as
>an unfair characterization of Coach Bob Gaudet that must be disputed.
 
Unfortunately, Luiz puts me in a difficult situation.  I am the admin
of INFO-HOCKEY-L, so it is my job to make sure people follow the
rules, which Luiz did not.  But in this situation, if I were to take
an admin stance, it might be said that I was trying to prevent
criticism of me and/or my comments, which of course I don't wish to do.
 
The gist of what follows is that except for one or two minor
differences, I stand by the comments I wrote and which Luiz took
exception to.  I will show how Luiz took certain things I said and
turned them into things I did not say.  I will also point out
instances in which he chose to take the discussion to a personal level
and take cheap shots at me, something I did not do in my initial post
and will not do here either.
 
I apologize for this, but the record needs to be set straight.
 
>>Posted on 2 Jan 1996 at 00:30:33 by Mike Machnik
>>
>>Brown-Merrimack box/notes (01Jan96)
>>
>>PREGAME - TO PLAY OR NOT TO PLAY
>>An unusual situation in the pregame nearly resulted in this game not being
>>played at all.  When Brown came out for warmups, junior defenseman Bill
>>McKay was with his team despite having received a major for punching and a
>>game disqualification at 19:16 of the second period in Brown's previous
>>game against Mass Lowell.  As the box score from the Brown-Lowell game had
>>been faxed to Merrimack Saturday evening, the Merrimack staff was aware of
>>this and brought it to the attention of referees Jim Fitzgerald and Dennis
>>Hughes.  The referees ruled that McKay could not play in this game and had to
>>leave the ice, which upset Brown coach Bob Gaudet.  Gaudet claimed that the
>>official game sheet from Brown-Lowell included a note from that game's
>>officials which said that the DQ was for that game only.  However, this
>>would have meant that the penalty would have to have been a game misconduct
>>and not a DQ.  Fitzgerald and Hughes ruled against McKay's participation,
>>and apparently Gaudet nearly pulled his team off the ice.  In the end, the
>>game was played, but without McKay.
>
>I have talked to Bob Gaudet about this situation. I don't think Mike's
>information is completely accurate. According to Gaudet the officials
>at the Lowell game had told him that they were assessing Bill McKay a
>game misconduct (which would have allowed McKay to play in the Merrimack
>game), not a disqualification. Evidently there was some misunderstanding
>between the officials and the scorer, who wrote down "game disqualification"
>instead of "game misconduct" on the game sheet.
 
Luiz is picking nits here.  I said that McKay received a DQ.  I got
this information from a first-hand look at the game summary that was
faxed to Merrimack (in other words, *I saw it*, and I posted it that
night, 30Dec95).  Luiz says that the penalty was a game misconduct but
that DQ was mistakenly written on the sheet.  I can certainly see how
this could have happened (and thought of it at the time as a possibility, although I didn't mention it in my post; I didn't have any reason to
believe that was actually what had happened).  If so, it is unfortunate
that it did happen.
 
BUT, what matters is that the game sheet said DQ, and thus, the
penalty officially stands as a DQ.  That is apparently what the
officials at the Brown-Merrimack game ruled, too.
 
>Gaudet, however, assumes
>full responsibility for not checking the game sheet more carefully after
>the Lowell game so that the mistake could have been corrected.
 
I agree.  But the officials at the next game had no choice but to go
with the evidence presented them, which was that the sheet said DQ.
 
>I was surprised when I read Mike's statement that "Gaudet nearly pulled
>his team off the ice" because it didn't sound like something that Gaudet
>would do.
 
Luiz neatly twists my words here by neglecting to include the word
"apparently" at the beginning of my quote.  I wrote it that way
because this was a piece of information I was given by a Brown
supporter.  I could not confirm it first hand, thus, "apparently".
 
>I asked Gaudet about it, and he confirmed that he never
>intended to pull Brown off the ice.
 
I would ask Luiz if Gaudet ever *said* that he might pull his team off the
ice.  What he said and what he *intended* could have been two different
things.  I personally do not know first hand of either his intentions
or what he said, and I don't have a problem with the idea that he
never intended to pull them off the ice.  Yet, I have to reiterate
that that information came from a Brown supporter.  I didn't make it
up, and it seemed credible enough for me to mention it.
 
More from my original post followed by Luiz's comments.
 
>>Soon after the goal, Gaudet was able to get a call in his favor when he
>>called an icing from the bench.  Merrimack was killing a penalty to Martin
>>Laroche and tried a long pass out of their end to send a Warrior in on a
>>shorthanded attempt.  The pass was just out of reach and went the length
>>of the ice, with Gaudet yelling from the bench, "Ice...ice!"  The officials
>>called the icing with Merrimack protesting, and when it was realized that
>>Merrimack was down a man (and thus the icing should have been waved off),
>>the faceoff was held at center ice due to official's error.
>>
>>Gaudet is an unusual coach and uses tactics I can't say I agree with.  I
>>don't know if this is typical for him, but he acted as a fourth official
>>throughout the entire game.  The "icing that wasn't" is only one example, as
>>he consistently raised his arm on the bench for offsides and icings and
>>yelled for those calls, and he complained vehemently on almost every call
>>that went against his team.  It is expected that coaches will argue calls
>>now and then, but Gaudet seemed to overdo it to a huge extent.  When you do
>>this, you run the risk of becoming like the boy who cried wolf, and it
>>almost seemed that once the officials realized that Gaudet had gotten them
>>on the icing call (and shown them up in the process, though they also should
>>have been more aware), they proceeded to completely ignore him the rest of
>>the game.  Most coaches pick and choose their spots.
>
>I think that this characterization of Coach Gaudet is overstated, unfair,
>and considering that Mike hasn't had too many opportunities to see
>Gaudet coach, a bit too hasty.
 
My comments dealt with this game ("I don't know if this is typical for
him...").  I hope Luiz does not believe that only the people who have
seen a team, coach or player many times should be allowed to comment.
Otherwise, most of us would not be able to talk about too much on here.
 
It is four days later, and I will stand by my comments and the description
I gave of Gaudet's actions on the bench that evening.  I don't consider
it to have been overstated, unfair, or hasty.  I also invite Luiz
to tell us specifically what *he* saw that game and how it might differ
from what I wrote.  I'd like to hear it.
 
>There are different styles of bench coaching. Some coaches, like Bowdoin's
>Terry Meagher, are rather quiet, and seldom dispute calls. They are,
>however, the exception. Gaudet is an emotional coach, who gets really
>involved, and talks throughout to game. Bill Cleary (former coach at
>Harvard) was a lot like Gaudet, and yet he was widely lauded in hockey
>circles as "a class act."
 
This sounds more like a verification of what I said than a rebuttal.
 
>Let me add that it's not unusual for people at the bench (both coaches
>and players) to "make calls," by yelling "icing," "tripping," "holding,"
>etc.
 
No, it's not unusual.  But, it is unusual for them to consistently put
their arms up to signal icing and offsides, too.  And it is unusual
for them to do this throughout the game.  I have not seen that happen
that consistently in any other college game I have seen.  That qualifies
as unusual.
 
>This happens at every level of hockey, and is hardly a conscious
>effort to "show the officials up."
 
When a coach vehemently yells "icing!" from the bench when the
opponent is short a man and ices the puck, and the official errantly
calls the icing, then it's hard to see how the officials were not shown
up - intentionally or not.  Gaudet had to have known the situation, after
all, he had his penalty killing unit out there.
 
>Hockey is an emotional game. To expect
>that coaches and players will act in a totally rational manner "in the
>heat of the battle" is a bit naive, and shows a lack of understanding
>of the psychology of hockey. Writing about or broadcasting a hockey
>game is very different from playing on coaching in one.
 
Luiz says here that I "expect that coaches and players will act in a
totally rational manner 'in the heat of battle'...".  I think people
here have read enough of my words for several years to know if this is
true or not.  Even if not, there's this sentence that is buried in the
middle of my paragraph above:
 
>>It is expected that coaches will argue calls
>>now and then, but Gaudet seemed to overdo it to a huge extent.
 
Now, who has the lack of understanding?
 
As for Luiz's final sentence, "Writing about or broadcasting a hockey
game is very different from playing on [sic] coaching in one," I'll
let readers of this list decide for themselves what they think of my
past game posts and whether they were accurate or not.
 
But what needs to be pointed out clearly is that first Luiz tries to
tell people that I said something I did not say - in fact, something
the opposite of what I DID say, and which no longtime hockey fan would
ever believe - and then he uses this as a springboard from which to
launch an attack on my attempts to provide list readers with a usual
objective report on the game.
 
I usually do not blow my own horn, but I'm going to stand up for
myself here and say that I think I have done a pretty decent job over
the past seven years of writing those objective reports.  Luiz's
attack was out of line.
 
>Bob Gaudet is an intense, emotional coach, but he's also one of the
>most honest and fair people I've ever met.
 
Again, by making sure to say this after his other comments, Luiz is
giving the impression that I do not feel this way about Gaudet.  He is
wrong, of course, and he is also wrong to do this.  I never said
anything that would indicate I disagree with what he said, and he
knows it.
 
I do not know Gaudet, so I cannot say anything other than what I have
heard of him from other people, and that matches what Luiz says.  I am
sure it is true.  And I have said before that I believe he has done a
great job at Brown.
 
But that does not contradict Gaudet's actions on the bench Monday nor
my description of them.  Nor does it validate them.
 
Finally, it was nice to see that unlike Luiz, another person from
Brown understood what I was saying about Gaudet (re: a reply I
received Tuesday).  That is, he is certainly an emotional coach who
gets his team to play with the same emotion.  This is something I
can definitely appreciate in a coach.  (Luiz conveniently only
quoted those portions of my game recap that seemed anti-Brown; in
several places I lauded Brown's work ethic.)  However, I felt that the
way in which he continually railed against the officials did not help
his team and that it was more likely to prevent him from getting a
close call when he needed it the most.  I certainly didn't say this
made Gaudet a bad guy or even a bad coach.  But as I said, "he uses
tactics I'm not sure I agree with."  And I won't withdraw any of the
words I wrote.
 
I have seen coaches like Parker and Walsh who are well known for going
on occasional tirades against officials.  They're also known for being
able to get their teams an extra advantage.  And they pick and choose
their spots to get on the officials.  Gaudet's actions on the bench
Monday ranked ahead of almost anything I have seen either of these two
do in the past.  Others will have to say if they think that is typical
for him.
 
I think it is a valid criticism.  I like his emotion and the way he is
into the game.  But I think he pushed the boundaries too often and by
doing so, he does not help his team.  That is my opinion.
 
>>With 2:52 left, on a scramble in front of Parsons after a shot by Kesselring,
>>a Brown defenseman either covered the puck in the crease or shoveled it to
>>Parsons to cover.  Referee Dennis Hughes quickly crossed his arms over his
>>head to signal penalty shot, much to the ire of the Brown coaching staff,
>>which let Hughes know about it as he skated to the scorers' bench to
>>announce the infraction.
>
>There's nothing unusual about the reaction of the Brown coaching staff,
>considering that it was a marginal call and very late in a tie game.
>How else should the Brown coaching staff have reacted? Interestingly,
>the official who made the call is a former teammate of Bob Gaudet's
>at Dartmouth.
 
Luiz, can you describe in what way the call was marginal from your
viewpoint?
 
It was nothing of the sort.  It was plain as day, and the official
apparently agreed since he made the call immediately.
 
I expect coaches to be upset when such a call is made.  I do not
expect a coach to walk over to the scorer's bench and scream in an
official's face while the official is explaining the situation to the
scorer.  Did you know that this was what happened?  Do you condone it?
Given past situations that I've seen, I thought it was quite possible
that he would have been assessed a bench minor or even ejected.
 
At any rate, the reaction was news.  It was worse than the type of
reaction I would have expected in that instance.  That's why it
merited being mentioned.
 
>>Kesselring took the shot and was stopped nicely
>>by Parsons, although several players on the Brown bench banged their sticks
>>against the boards as Kesselring skated towards the net in an apparent
>>attempt to distract the shooter. This could have resulted in misconducts
>>against the offending players and another chance for Kesselring, but that
>>was not the case, and besides, Kesselring didn't show any signs of being
>>distracted.
>
>Of course, Kesselring wasn't distracted. Unlike tennis players, who claim
>that the slightest noise disrupts their ability to serve, or return
>serve, or whatever, hockey players are used to performing amidst loud
>noise. I'm sure Kesselring was totally focused on his task as he skated
>towards the net. Hockey players are not distracted by noise. I haven't
>talked to any of the Brown players about this, but I'm almost sure that
>their reaction was directed at the officials, not at the Merrimack player.
 
If this was true, why did they wait until Kesselring skated to center ice
and began his attempt before they started banging their sticks against
the boards?  Several minutes elapsed between the time that the play ended
and the time that Kesselring began his penalty shot.
 
>In this sense, maybe the referees could have called misconducts, but
>they showed some restraint in not doing so.
 
Yes, they did.
 
>I doubt, however, that
>Kesselring could have been given a second chance. As far as I know the
>rules simply state that no one shall interfere with the shooter as he
>skates towards the net. In hockey, noise doesn't constitute interference.
 
Arthur Mintz answered this already with the quotation from the rule
book - a rule I doublechecked myself before I posted my article, by
the way.
 
If you think I am angry about this, well, you're darn right.  On many
different levels, too.  One, things I did not say were attributed to
me.  Two, things I did say were taken out of context.  Three, people
were given the impression that I had certain negative feelings about
Bob Gaudet the man, which I do not.  Four, I am told that I cannot be
critical of Gaudet's actions in this game because I do not see him and
his team often.  Five, my opinions of his actions in this game were
extrapolated to suggest that I think he acts that way all the time
when I stated clearly that I did not know one way or the other.  Six,
my eyewitness description of things that happened is challenged by
someone who does not indicate that he even saw the game in question.
Seven, Luiz's decision to intentionally break the rules of INFO-HOCKEY-L
and post his reply there should be of concern to everyone who agrees that replies there should not be allowed.
 
And finally, the way in which Luiz wrote his reply supports strongly
some of the emailed concerns I have received prior to this.  People say
they don't want to post things that are critical for fear of starting a
flame war or drawing personal attacks (such as the ones Luiz made upon me).
In the past, I simply told people to ignore the flames and that if you felt
you were right in what you were saying, then to say it - just do it
right (i.e., no personal attacks upon people, no flames).  Clearly
even though I followed my own advice, it wasn't enough in this case,
and I can now see why people expressed to me the concerns they did.
 
So I guess it's time for me to stand up for those people who want to
be able to post objective reports and include critical thoughts
without having others resort to flaming them just because they
disagree.  If you disagree with something someone says, that is okay,
but let's keep it at the level of a friendly disagreement.  There is
no need to resort to the type of subterfuge and cheap attacks that
Luiz resorted to.
 
---                                                                   ---
Mike Machnik                   [log in to unmask]            *HMM* 11/13/93
>> Co-owner of the College Hockey Lists at University of Maine System  <<
*****       Unofficial Merrimack Hockey home page located at:       *****
*****   http://www.tiac.net/users/machnik/MChockey/MChockey.html    *****
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.