Thursday, January 24, 2013

Rough and Tumble Game As Colorado Blanks Blue Jackets

I was following the fight at the Pepsi Center in Denver, and a hockey game broke out.


Avalanche 4, Blue Jackets 0
 
NHL.com

Things did not get off to a good start for Columbus.  Just 51 seconds into the game, Colorado's PA Parenteau.  That caused Patrick Bordeleau of Colorado and Jared Boll of Columbus to fight quickly thereafter.  Things were chippy as both teams starting hitting a little harder, particularly when Av's Matt Duchene netted a second goal putting the Union boys in a two-goal hole at 12:25 in the opening period.  A Columbus powerplay was negated early when an undisciplined Brandon Dubinsky was whistled for a crosscheck and an additional two minutes for unsportsmanlike conduct.  Luckily, nothing became of that Colorado powerplay.

Another fight symbolized the boiling over of emotions; a retalitory fight at the end of the first for knocking over the Columbus tender Sergei Bobrovsky sent Jacket Dubinsky back to the sin bin along with Av's fight-loser Jamie McGinn.

The intermission didn't calm the nerves as Colorado's Gabriel Landeskog and Columbus' Derek Dorsett came out swinging.  Roughing calls for both men at 44 seconds in.  There were several other "group hugs" between the two hockey clubs that didn't amount to penalties throughout the game.  But this tough-man mentality did not help the Columbus Blue Jackets.
 
The penalties rained down from the officials.  A roughing call followed by a roughing call followed by a fight, and roughing and a fight.  Hook here, hold there.  Roughing.  You know.  Hockey.  I'm not suggesting the Referees were unfair, but I just wanted to show the chippiness of this game.  Dorsett alone got three roughing calls in the second period alone.
 
NHL.com

John Mitchell added to the Columbus woes as he came up in the zone for a nasty wrister to put the puck behind Bobrovsky.  That put the Jackets behind 3-0 with a little over 15 minutes to go in the third period.  The icing on the cake came at 18:42 mark for Duchene.  AAAAAAAAAAVVVAAAALANCCCHHHEE GOOOOAAAL! as their PA Announcer Alan Roach would say.

The Avalanche netminder Semyon Varlamov was shutting the door shot after shot.  He didn't give up a lot of rebounds and seemed to see the puck very well.  He certainly had some help in front of him.

The Avalanche kept ahead of the Blue Jackets in the shots department for the first period; a deficit that was erased in the second when the Jackets outshot their opponents 12-6.  This is a good sign for the Columbus club.  They didn't give up and roll over, especially after being in that hole less than a minute into the game off the Avs' first shot of the game.  They kept their shots up and fought back, literally.   They did take some unnecessary penalties, but the penalty kill unit was strong.  Unfornately, the powerplay people didn't cash in, 0-5 in the first two periods.

This is the first shutout the Blue Jackets have suffered this season and the second regulation loss in a row (third including a shootout loss to the Red Wings on Monday).  The scoreboard was not represenative of the fire the Blue Jackets showed. 

NHL.com

The Blue Jackets return to action on Saturday when they host the Chicago Blackhawks.  The Blackhawks will be undefeated with a 4-0-0 record.

NHL Mascot Beats LA Laker in Basketball Challenge

The Los Angeles Kings' mascot Bailey challenged NBA superstar Dwight Howard to a shooting competetion at a Lakers' practice.

Who would you put your money on? 

The multi-million dollar professional basketball player?

Or the 5'10" lion mascot of a hockey team?

Yeah, the lion.

It is unclear if the superstar actually lost on purpose or not, but it is certain that Bailey has some skills with the roundball.  He bested Howard from the free-throw line and in 3-pointers. 

Let's go to the video, shot in November.

Steve Sullivan's Hat Trick Sinks Blue Jackets in Phoenix


 
Coyotes 5, Blue Jackets 1
 
It was a rough night in the desert for the Columbus Blue Jackets as the team took a regulation loss to the Phoenix Coyotoes.


NHL.com

Neither team managed a goal in the first period.  The Jackets started off slow and down in the shot category, down 8 shots to 2 at one point.  That trend extended into the second when the Coyotes had 17 shots to the Blue Jackets 7.  But as Feder Tyutin proved just 5 and a half minutes after the first intermission, it only takes one shot to get a goal.  The slap shot went past the Yotes' tender Jason LaBarbera who was replacing injuried starting goalie Mike Smith.  Smith substained a lower body injury and did not return.

The injury to Smith could effect the local Gwinnett Gladiators as they are the ECHL affiliates of the Portland Pirates and Phoenix Coyotes. The Pirates will likely send a player to Phoenix (actually San Jose, where the Coyotes will play on Thursday) sending a Gladiator up to stand between the pipes in Maine. 

Phoenix got to play that annoying goal-scoring coyote howl sound effect not too long after that.  A rebound was put home by Steve Sullivan about two minutes after the Tyutin goal.  Another wrister from Oliver Ekman-Larsson off a mishandled while Jacket tender Steve Mason was caught off guard.  Mason got the start over Sergei Bobrovsky who had great performances for the Blue Jackets in the opening two games, getting the team into a shootout both nights.  In this shortened NHL season, all teams will likely be using their backup goalies significantly more percentage-wise than they would otherwise since the time between games is a lot less than normal.

Each teams demonstrated great discipline throughout the first part of the night. Neither team send too many men to the box, including a penalty-free first period. Both teams took silly "too many men" penalties in the second, including an extremely disappointing one for Columbus with just three seconds left in the 2nd.

NHL.com
However, a rare coincidental pair of minor tripping penalties committed by Columbus at the 3:20 mark of the third put both Derick Brassard and Derek Dorsett in the box, giving Phoenix a full 2:00 5-on-3 powerplay. They would need just one minute for Sullivan to wrist his second goal of the game. Sullivan would notch the fourth Phoenix goal at 10:01, solidifing his 8th career hat-trick and the Coyotes win. 
 
The frustrations started showing late in the game as evidenced by a roughing penalty and a slashing call.  The Jackets have to control their emotions if they want to give themselves a chance to win late in the game.  And the way this team has looked so far, there will be quite a many games to be won in the last period.  The final tally would be 5-1 for Phoenix.

It was disappointing the team wasn't able to get more shots on goal, particularly immediately following the replacement of injured Phoenix goalie Smith.  Smith was a big part of the impressive Phoenix run in the playoffs last year, so the Blue Jackets needed to pounce on the opportunity to face an unprepared goalie.  Actually, they never really took a lot of shots on goal, even after the "first minute jitters" as the Coyotes outshot the Jackets 42-26.  Since they gave their starting tender Bobrovsky the night off, the Jackets really needed to have a strong defensive showing, and they simply did not do that.  The Coyotes needed a big game after a slow start to the season (two losses), and they certainly got it against the Columbus Blue Jackets on Wednesday night.

NHL.com


The Blue Jackets will play on the road again tomorrow in Colorado with a 9:00 start time.


Wednesday, January 23, 2013

First Suspension of the Season - PHI's Brayden

 
"Philadelphia Flyers forward Brayden Schenn has been suspended for one game for charging New Jersey Devils defenseman Anton Volchenkov in NHL Game No. 30 in New Jersey on Tuesday, January 22, the National Hockey League's Department of Player Safety announced today.

"Under the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, and based on his average annual salary, Schenn will forfeit $4,702.70. The money goes to the Players' Emergency Assistance Fund.

"The incident occurred at 12:37 of the second period. No penalty was assessed on the play."
 
 
 

 
A few notes:

First, it is good to see the NHL Department of Player Safety continuing the videos.  It is good to hear Brendon Shanahan (though we didn't see him and his jacket / no tie self) in this video.

I have always argued it is good for these videos to exist because it allows the NHL to explain, with evidence, their position regarding a supplimental discipline decision.  I certainly hope there are more videos on why they didn't suspend someone after controversal hits, but I don't have hopes that will happen. 

Second, this supplimental discipline seems reasonable.  No priors, no apparent injury, not a particularly vicious hit, but certainly outside the lines of acceptability.  Yeah, one game seems fair.

Last, why in the world wasn't this play called on the ice?  Referee Jean Hebert was behind the net, watching the puck go around the ice.  Referee Brad Watson was at center ice near the penalty boxes, also watching.  Hebert didn't see how far Brayden had travelled, but certainly saw the impact.  Watson should have been able to see the distance and the hit.  I put the onus of this non-call on Hebert because, although distance is mentioned in the rules, it is not the overriding factor.  It's the degree of the hit.

Rule 42:1 Charging

"A minor of major penalty shall be imposed on a player who skates or jumps into, or chages an opponent in any manner.

"Charging shall mean the actions of a player who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner.  A "charge" may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice."

It is apparent that the jumping and knocking over of Volchenkov should have been enough to merit a penalty for charging.  If it wasn't for the distance traveled (say, if Brayden had been standing there and jumped), Brayden would have been knocked over by Volchenkov's momentum. 

If you missed this game, you missed Ilya Kovalchuk scoring on a penalty shot.

Hockey and Life: Interference

I've decided to relate some life lessons on this blog.  Something a little different.  I've just started thinking that many hockey rules, or at least their names, can be applied in real life.  These are mostly my interpretations of things, so keep that in mind.  I bearly know what I'm talking about when it comes to the NHL Rule Book- and that contains rules written down.  Life?  Not so.

Anyway, I wanted to take a minute to discuss a situation that has been on my mind a lot over the past several months:  interference.

It's Rule 56 in the NHL Rule Book.  Essentially, you can't impede the progress of a player who doesn't have possession of the puck.  So what does this have to do with life?

Well, I'll use my own life as an example.  I may have lost a friend because of interference.  There was a severe difference of opinion on the right course of action after someone's heartbreaking and depressing situation.  One person's noble gestures started coming across not the way it was intended.

Something happened over a few weeks and it left the person low.  Very very low and depressed.  They weren't eating right.  They didn't sleep well.  There was a lot of crying.  It was one of those situations where the world just seemed to completely crumble around them.  A truly horrible way to see a friend.  Luckily, there were still going to work.  Still interacting with others.  Still participating in life, even though it was very difficult and hard.

The situation was complicated because the catalyst involved one friend acting in a manner that hurt another friend, which obviously leaves the rest in the group in a truly ackward position.  Now, we can't be held responsible for the actions of our friends, but I've discovered that a friend's proximity has a ripple effect (or is it affect?) on those around them.  It is an unfortunate aftermath any time there is a disruption in a group.

Well, in my situation, the person was hurt and became a broken heap of a shell they once were.  This just destroyed them to their very foundation.  And they asked for time to recover in their own time in order to build themselves up with self-worth.  They had previously put a lot of faith in their friends and the sting they obviously felt when they were (at least in their mind) betrayed by some of those friends was hard.  They decided to build themselves back up without anyone from that group around. 

That is a hard thing to hear.  You want to be there for someone when they fall.  And it is heartbreaking to think that just the thought of you could be hurtful.  It is so hard to watch someone build themselves knowing they don't want your assistance.  But, in this case, it seems to have been necessary.  They had to build their own foundation and restart.  And they asked for time to heal away from the group.

This is where the notion of interference comes in.  Good intentions got in the way.  Instead of being allowed the space they desired, it was decided that a nice reminder of past happiness or future good-times would be appropriate.  A picture from a past vacation together.  Or a "hey, thinking about you!" text ever now and again could only raise their spirits, right? 

That was interference.  It wasn't meant to be, but it was.  That happy vacation picture?  Not only did it remind them of that happy trip, but other trips.  Trips that included the people that hurt them.  Thinking of you texts?  Same thing.  Good times were seen with a heavy shadow of doubt.  After all, the person that hurt them was a friend.  A close friend.  Someone they loved.  The thought was that all those friends, close friends, loved ones were capable of creating such pain.

You may be thinking to yourself "well, they just need to get over it," and I absolutely agree with that.  They do need to get over it.  Life sucks sometimes.  Life isn't perfect.  They can't forever live in the past.  True, true and true. 

But how long does it take for one to get over it?  That moment?  A year?  A few months?  What's the timeline?  And who decides when they can get over it? 

I wish the request for space and time had been adhired to.  Enough time hadn't pasted to reach out to them.  They felt they needed to work on themselves significantly and not place so much of their emotions on the actions and reactions of their close friends.  I am happy to know that they feel they are in a much better place after this experience, though the pain and distrust among that group are still there.  They weren't given the time to deal with that emotion in their way.

It was intereference to prematurely reach out to them.  They knew not everyone was guilty of past evils.  They knew many wanted to support them and only had good intentions.  But, in this situation, those intentions were only painful reminders of a past pain because of the proximity. 

It should have been obvious that space and time was the best course of action, even though it is hard to give that to someone in pain.  They initially asked for the time, then ignored those friendly texts, then blocked and erased messages until it finally culminated in a direct (and frankly very strongly worded) angry blow out.  I am ashamed it got to the point of just distasteful cussing, but frankly can see why it got there.  There were signs, but, I don't know, thickheadedness maybe got in the way.  We can all be a bit thickheaded, espescially when trying to do the best thing for a friend.

Intereference.  It's a funny thing.  There are times when interfering is the absolute, without question thing to do.  If a friend is drinking their problems away or not going to work or avoiding EVERYONE or actively harming themselves or going to harm others or turning to drugs or anything like that, then I strongly recommend you step in.  Without question.  But a time and space request away from a group whom certain members created such conflict in order to attempt to build one's self up and heal emotional damage?  Maybe that should have been respected.

I would urge you not to interfere with a person taking time to build a broken heart or you might just destroy a friendship with misinterpreted good intentions.  If they ask for help, help them.  But if they ask for space, respect that too.

I certainly don't want anyone reading this to lose a friend because of their interference.

I hope I haven't lost a friend, though it seems that way at this moment.  I don't know how long it will take them to heal and hopefully rejoin the group (at least, in some capacity).  Maybe they never will.  But the time to help them personally or welcome them back will come when the person that was so hurt makes the first move.  Otherwise, it's just interference.

--

Okay, enough deep stuff for now.  Again, those are just my thoughts on life with a little bit of hockey terms mixed in there.  It may have been hard to follow, but I don't think it would be appropriate to name names or exactly say what happened.  Frankly, my version of the story is through my eyes anyway, so it is probably a little skewed. 

For those of you that suffered through all that, a reward:

If you like-a da ladies:  here you go.

If you dig guys:  this is for you.

And something we all can agree on:  Sean Avery bleeding after a fight.

I'll do more of these from time to time.  I may not always use my own life, but it will always be my own take.  Some rules really do just lend themselves to life lessons:  Offsides.  Diving.  Fighting.  Hooking. 

...I may need to reconsider donig an entry on that last one.