The Hockey Rabbi

Ramblings

So I'm driving home from work this evening listening to WFAN.  Steve Sommers, my all time favorite is on the air.  The schmooze takes a call from some guy who rambles on about how the NHL must have fixed the Rangers-Pens series in order to make sure that Crosby advances in the tournament.  Hmmmm.....  Let's see.....

Does the NHL want Pittsburgh to advance?  Of course.  Did the NHL sabotage the Rangers to make sure Pittsburgh wins?  Please.   However, I will give the conspiracy theorists this:  isn't it strange that when watching a game on a local network like, say, MSG, when a goal is being reviewed, the local network gives you every possible replay angle so that you can effectively make the call for yourself.  Yet when watching games on NHL networks like Versus or NBC, you barely get even a simple replay.  What's that all about?  Does the NHL want us to take their word for it?  Are they afraid that by giving us all the looks, we might catch them making a mistake? 

Guess who's going to be a restricted free agent after next season?  Evgeny "Slew Foot" Malkin.  If the Pens are crazy enough to let him get to July 1 without a new contract, I can see Glenn Sather personally backing the Brinks truck up to Malkin's door.  How does a 10 year maximum contract front loaded to the greatest extent permitted by the CBA sound?  I can hear the good folks in Pittsburgh PA whining already!

So Drury takes a blatant stick to the face.  He's cut so badly the blood had to be scraped out of the ice.  Obviously, none of the on-ice officials see anything.  Tom Renney, of course, makes no attempt to protest the missed call.  What was Tom Terrific thinking?  "What does a guy have to do to get fired around here???" 

 

Did I mention how well Chris Drury did the "little things" in round 1?!?!

   

Rangers Go Bust

Flashback to July 1, 2007:  By the close of business the Rangers were anointed "winners" of the 2007 free agency derby.  Having signed Scott Gomez AND Chris Drury the Rangers had turned themselves into instant Cup contenders.  Make no mistake, the goal for this season was to win it all.  When viewed from that perspective, this afternoon's disappointing game capped off a season of failure for the Blueshirts.

I'm sure that in the coming days and months, some pundits will lament the rash of key injuries suffered by important members of the team.  Some will decry the horrible officiating (how could all the on ice officials  miss the stick to Drury's face?!?!).

The bottom line, however, is that with the notable exception of Jaromir Jagr, the Rangers' best players simply did not play their best hockey. 

Gomez's turn-overs set up more plays for Pittsburgh than his passes did for New York.  Drury disappeared long before he injured his ribs.  Actually, I'm not really sure Drury ever appeared this post-season.  If I hear another person talking about how well Drury does the "little things" I think I'll puke!  Drury was NOT signed to his monstrous contract (complete with a "no-movement" clause) in order to do the "little things".  Drury was signed in order to score those huge franchise defining playoff goals.  You know the type...think "Matteau...Matteau".  Blair Betts wins face-offs and kills penalties too. 

Management has some huge and difficult decisions to make in the coming months.  A number of the teams top players are heading into free agency.  We'll get into all of that in due time.  For now, though, the Rangers go bust.             

To Suspend Or Not To Suspend?

Towards the end of last night's Rangers victory, Evgeny Malkin "slew footed" Paul Mara of the Rangers (for anyone who doesn't know, "slew footing"  is where one player kicks the feet out from behind and under another player which is often- but not always- done while simultaneously pulling the victimized player backwards to the ice).  Fortunately for Mara the play did not result in an injury to the Rangers defenseman.  Pursuant to NHL Rules, "Slew Footing" is an automatic match penalty.   Not surprisingly, given the sorry state of officiating in the NHL, no penalty was called on the play. 

The question is, should the NHL do something about the incident?  This morning I heard fans calling in to one of the local sports talk radio shows in order to discuss the subject.  Some folks fealt that a suspension was warranted as "slew footing" is an inherently dirty and dangerous play and, therefore, has no place in hockey.  Other folks fealt that since there was no injury there should be no supplemental discipline.  Virtually everyone agreed that since a superstar like Malkin commited the act, there would be no reprecussions (that in and of itself is a topic for another day!).  To me it's a no-brainer:

The NHL rule book does not give a referee any discretion in this matter:  slew-footing is an automatic match penalty.  Period.  It also results in a player being ineligible to play until the NHL reviews the incident to determine whether or not a suspension is warranted.  Therefore, at the very least, the NHL should review the play.  The fact that the refs missed the call does not mean that the incident did not occur. 

Now we get to the juicy stuff!  Assuming the NHL reviews the play (and by the way, if a guy like Avery or Hollweg commited this act there is no doubt that the play would be reviewed), should they suspend Malkin? 

First, Malkin should be suspended.  There is absolutely no place in the NHL for a play like that.  The fact is that dangerous incidents are par for the course in hockey.  That's what happens when you play a high speed and high impact game.  However, most of the dangerous plays that occur in the course of a game are unintentional and incidental to otherwise legal contact.  For example, two players collide, one of them inadvertently looses control of his stick which gets raised too high and dangerously hits another player in the face.  Is this a penalty?  Definitely.  Is it worthy of suspension? Absolutely not.  How about this one:  Player A goes into the offensive zone hard on the forecheck.  He lines up Player B for a body check.  At the last instant, Player B turns his body so that Player B ends up getting hit from behind into the boards. Penalty?  Probably.  Worthy of suspension?  Not if Player A had no chance of avoiding what would otherwise have been a clean hit.  How about this one:  6'7' Hal Gill goes to take the body on 5'7' Marc Savard who is hunched over playing the puck with his head down.  Because of their massive size difference, Gill's elbow unintentionally ends up in Savard's ear.  Penalty?  Possibly.  Worthy of suspension?  No. 

What do these three common examples have in common?  (1) they all involve contact that is ultimately "illegal" yet the contact stems from otherwise legal actions which routinely occur in the course of a hockey game; and (2) there is clearly no intent to injure. 

Contrast that with "slew footing".  (1) Slew footing is not a play that in any way shape or form arises out of or is incidental to normal, ordinary, routine or expected contact in the course of a hockey game; and (2) the very nature of this deliberate action evidences an intent to injure or (at the very least) an unacceptable and reckless disregard for the safety of another player. 

Based on that, Malkin should be suspended. 

What about the "no harm no foul" theory?  After all, Mara wasn't injured why should Malkin be suspended?  First, I don't think that injuries or the lack thereof should play any factor in determining whether or not to suspend a player.  Certain conduct is unacceptable and players must know that if they perpetrate those unnacceptable acts they will be punished.  Without a clear rule, players will continue committing dangerous acts which will one day lead to serious injuries. 

However, I don't discount the "no harm no foul" theory all togther.  I think that the injuries or the lack thereof should absolutely be considered in determining the length of a suspension and/or the fine imposed.  As a lawyer I'm borrowing this theory from our legal system:  When a plaintiff sues a defendant, in very general terms there are two aspects to the lawsuit:  the first is liability the second is damages.  In english that means that first we have to determine if the defendant did anything wrong.  If he did, then we decide what his punishment is.  If the defendant did nothing wrong, the case is over. 

So let's assume the defendant did do something wrong (i.e. he is liable to the plaintiff).  Now we have to figure out the damages (i.e what's the right punishment).  How do we decide?  We look at the damages suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the defendant's wrongful conduct and we tell the defendant to pay back that damage.  Sometimes, you can have a defendant who did something wrong but no damage resulted therefrom.  That defendant is still found liable, but he's only required to pay a small "symbolic" amount to the plaintiff since after all, the plaintiff's rights were trampled. 

But then there's another measure of damages.  It's called punitive damages (from the same word as punish).  Sometimes a defendant does something unacceptable that shocks the conscience of society and must be punished for it even beyond the damage that his actions caused to the plaintiff.  One of the theories behind punitive damages is deterrence:  we want people to know that certain conduct is not acceptable and if anyone engages in that conduct they will be punished beyond the direct consequences of their actions. 

That's the Malkin slew foot case.  Thankfully, Paul Mara was not injured.  Nonetheless, there's no room for that kind of nonesense in the NHL.  Instead of worrying about the "Avery Rule" the NHL should be worrying about real and potentially dangerous infractions. 

I say let Malkin sit out game 5.  Discuss amongst yourselves!                  

Relatively Speaking, It's No Big Deal

I've said it before: sports are a microcosm of life.  So instead of analyzing the Rangers' chances or looking at NHL history, I figured I'd tell you guys a story of a hero who really beat the odds to come from behind and win (the story is true but the names have been changed to protect the identity of the parties involved):

I had just come back to my office after a lunch meeting a few years back.  I got a call from my friend Sam.  He asked me if I had heard from our mutual friend Dan lately.  Dan was I guy I grew up with.  Over the years we drifted apart a bit.  However, we always touched base every few weeks to catch up. 

I told Sam that as a matter of fact I had not heard from Dan in about a month which, come to think of it, was a little out of the ordinary.  Sam told me that he had reason to believe that Dan's "occasional" and "recreational" drug use had spiraled out of control.  I was worried to say the least.

I immediately tried calling Dan every few minutes.  My calls went straight to voice mail.  I decided to call Dan's father.  When he answered the phone and I asked him about Dan, his father told me that he'd have to call me back.  His tone sounded strange.

A few minutes later my phone rang.  It was Dan's father.  He told me that he had not been able to reach Dan for a full week.  He also told me that Dan's drug use had spiraled out of control.  Apparently, a lot of people were worried about Dan and he had been getting a lot of worried calls.  A few hours later, Dan decided to call me.  He sounded terrible.  He wouldn't tell me where he was.  He wouldn't tell me how I could reach him.  I asked him to please call me regularly.  I told him I wanted to come pick him up from wherever he was.

A few days went by when I would get random calls from Dan telling me he was O.K..  I knew that he wasn't.  Finally, he called me and told me where he was.  I immediately called Sam and we went to get Dan.  He refused to come out of the "house" he was holed up in. 

After a few hours of hide and seek, we finally got him into the car and on the way to a hospital.  We sat in the hospital waiting room all night waiting for a bed to become available in the detox unit.  Dan would disappear into the bathroom every 20 minutes.  My heart was breaking.  Sam was crushed by the horrible suffering our friend was experiencing.  Finally, Dan got a bed.

I wish I could say that Dan's road to recovery was all uphill from their.  It wasn't.  That wasn't his last trip to detox. 

I remember Dan telling me that he could not imagine living the rest of his life without drugs.  The task was just too daunting.  His friends told him not to worry about the rest of his life.  Just worry about the next 60 seconds.  String together 10 minutes.  Then another ten.  Then another ten. Then another ten. 

Dan listened to his friends.  Today, thank G-d, he's a hero.  Dan was down much worse than 0-3 and today, one day at a time, he's kicking the day lights out of his opponent. 

I'm certainly not equating a hockey series to addiction.  Tonight's game is just that...a game.  We often learn lessons in sports that we can apply to every day life.  Sometimes, however, athletes can learn lessons from the triumphs of ordinary people that those athletes can then apply to their sports.

Hey Dan......I'm proud of you.