As will probably be no surprise, I want to put my oar in with the
others who have recently decried the interference, hooking, etc.
which characterizes the game.  I particularly liked the reference to
the constant poking with the stick which players trailing the puck
carrier constantly engage in--and get away with.  Who needs this?!
 
Another "favorite" of mine--the virtually inevitable extra "push"
given to a player who's down on the ice by another player who has
been tangled up with him or put him down in the first place, and is
the first to rise to his feet.  In football, which is *supposed* to
be a "contact" sport, this sort of thing results in a penalty
whenever it's seen.
 
This is why a lot of us greatly prefer the international game.  Hockey
is the most graceful, thrilling team sport in the world when it's
played in a wide-open fashion with speed, beautiful passes, and
tremendous individual moves.  I'm really caught up in college hockey
now that I'm at a major player in that game, but I'd still *really*
like to see a more international style of play.  The Czechoslovakian
and Unified teams demonstrated in the Olympics, BTW, that this style
can make the North American "bump and grind" look *pretty* bad.
 
Incidentally, isn't fan bias wonderful?  I don't think I've ever heard
or read *anywhere* an account of a game in which the home team/personal
favorite was described as utilizing the "clutch and grab" style of
play, yet I'll bet I've heard every one of the top 20 Divsion I teams
accused of this tactic by one or more others who root for some other
team.  (My apologies to David Smith--I believe you, in fact, have
described the Ohio State Buckeyes in this fashion, David.   Of course,
you've made no secret of the fact that you're *really* a Cornell fan,
and in your remark re OSU's style of play you were defending them
against an accusation of much worse things.  :-)  )
 
Hockey is a funny sport.  Some of the things which ought to be illegal
aren't, and some which supposedly are often   aren't penalized.  On the
other hand, some things which seem like they should be OK *are* illegal.
(I'm thinking of things like "hitting the puck with a 'high' stick"--
which STILL hasn't been explained to me; and (now) the rule that a
hand pass is legal in the defensive zone but illegal elswhere.)
 
As far as officiating is concerned, I am totally on the side of those
here who defend officials.  Where would the game be if there were no
officials?  No where, that's where.  The game has rules--that's what
makes it a game.  If people don't like the rules, they should change
them.  Castigating an official for calling the rules seems rather
contradictory, to say the least.  One list member used an analogy of
a basketball referee who would be in deep puckey (I've actually heard
that somewhere, and it seems so appropriate to a hockey discussion!)
if he actually called all the incidental contact in a game as a foul.
BUT--I'm pretty sure the basketball rule book defines a FOUL as "contact
interfering with the normal course of play" or some such; not simple
touching/running into.  Hockey officials *don't* call incidental
contact (at least for the most part) as deserving of penalties, only
those which in fact do interrupt the attempts of another player to
engage in his play.  I agree that officials vary in the degree to
which they'll let this kind of contact go without calling a penalty,
but as long as they're consistent, as many of you have pointed out,
there shouldn't be any gripes.  Now I know one hockey-l'er has said
that his personal observation of the LSSU-Wisconsin game indicated very
uneven calls between the two teams, and if *that's* so, then there
really was a problem.  However, *no one* has come up with anything
which even remotely comes close to suggesting *why* the official
would favor one team over the other,and I have great difficulty in
understanding how this could happen as a matter of statistical chance.
 
                      ***********************************
                     *      Steve Christopher, NMU       *
                    *  "Go 'Cats!''Goin' for it again in  *
                    *     '93--With a little less "O"     *
                    *          and a lot more "D"!        *
                     *        [log in to unmask]         *
                      ***********************************