Posts
Also regardless of when it happened, the fact that no one can pinpoint exactly which hit was responsible is the key element of my position on the matter. No penalties were called for an illegal hit. Nothing fell under the purview of the new "hits to the head" rule when the league reviewed the games. If it had, a player would have been penalized retroactively no matter what the call or non-call was on the ice. Basically what we have is a situation were a player took one or more hard but legal hits and now he has a concussion. Period. As much as the league doesn't want it to be the case, players can and do sustain injuries on completely legal plays. Shit, Cal O'Reilly from the Predators broke his leg a couple weeks ago seemingly spontaneously. He was standing by the boards and next thing you know he was crawling on all fours to the bench and BAM! Broken fibula.
Before I go any further with my diatribe here let me just state that I know it's no secret that I don't like Crosby. It pains me none to have him off the ice, not scoring, so that someone else can win the scoring title this year. Even though I know that when someone else wins it all the Crosbyphiles out there will claim that he would have won except he sat out X number of games with this injury, and that's just going to piss me off more. Both because it will detract from whoever the winner is, and because no one said the same about Ovechkin last year when he missed a handful of games due to injury and bogus suspensions. It appears as though the winner will be Stamkos, and I don't like that little twit either, but if he wins he deserves the trophy without everyone doubting his legitimacy because their preferred winner missed the mark. But now I'm getting off track here...I say this because it's not just my extreme dislike of Crosby that is driving my feelings on the issue. I would feel this way about the statement in question if it applied to any other player in the league--yes, even my beloved Sasha.
OK, now back to the main point. Last night one of the NHL Network commentators had the gall to suggest that Pittsburgh keep Crosby out through the All-Star break and not allow him to participate in the All-Star game to "send a signal to the league" that it's "stars" need to be "protected." What. The. Fuck?
Yes, withholding Crosby from the All-Star game would be a major blow to the league. It would "send a signal" no doubt. But as to what that signal is supposed to be, I'm at a complete loss. Like I said, no penalties were committed. If Crosby's teammates felt that a call was missed, or even that Crosby was being unnecessarily, albeit legally, abused during the game, they would have taken care of that. That's why they allow fighting in hockey. So, the question remains unanswered: what is the signal that Pittsburgh needs to send to the league?
The process of deductive reasoning leaves us with only one possibility: that you should not be allowed to hit so-called "stars," either at all or as hard as you'd hit any other player on the team. There's been much debate over the years as this is already an unspoken rule as is--and led to that amazing knock-out punch delivered by Jordin Tootoo on Stephane Robidas four years ago in Nashville, which ended with the ridiculous suspension of Tootoo. Yet again, this is why fights are allowed. If a team feels that their "star" is being roughed up, they send out an enforcer to handle the situation. The asinine suggestion by the NHL Network commentator that this be somehow unofficially codified by the league presents a whole host of problems.
First, and most importantly, hockey is a team sport. Every player on the ice is expected to play as hard as the others, regardless of actual ability. Every player must skate as fast as he can, pass as well as he can, control the puck as best he can, defend, shoot, backcheck, forecheck, protect against turnovers, etc... Not infrequently this also includes hitting and being hit. Generally speaking, the high-powered snipers such as Crosby (but not Ovechkin) avoid hitting and really only put their bodies on the line when they battle along the boards. But that doesn't make them immune to getting hit. It's a physical game and no player can be expected to hold back just because they are approaching a player who doesn't make direct hits a part of his playing style.
Secondly, how do we define "star" in this context? There's no argument to be made, as much as I hate to admit it, that Sidney Crosby is a star. Of course he is. And of course Ovechkin is. Stamkos and Kovalchuck too. But what is the criteria beyond being known across the entire league? I mean, at least five Chicago players could fit that description, as could the entire Detroit Red Wings team. In these examples it's not clear if we're defining "star" by name recognition or scoring ability but even if you picked one of those two you'll still end up with some teams made up almost entirely of stars and some without any. For example, let's say we go with scoring ability. Well, is this in the context of the entire league or just the leading scorer for one particular team? If we go by name recognition, or celebrity status, you'll still have a handful of teams that don't really have a player that fits the bill (i.e. Nashville). Is star defined by how much the player is paid? Are we designating any one team's highest paid player as the star that's immune to hits? What if your highest paid player is a defensemen--not typical, but could be the case in Nashville next season--and his job is to hit and be hit? What then?
Let's pretend for a minute that we could agree on one of those criteria for defining the "star" player on any team. Any one of them except the highest paid player criteria could still result in one team having five or seven stars and some teams having one or even none. So, would the team be required to designate their star player that can't be hit? Would he wear a different color jersey, or have a big "NH" on his back indicating "no hitting"?
Of course not. Let's get real here people. It would be neither fair to the rest of the team, nor rational by any stretch of the mind, to create a rule like this. The Crosbyphiles in the hockey media are just heartbroken they don't have their favorite pet to report on day in and day out. They are beside themselves with the thought that he might not win the Rocket Trophy this year, even though when they aren't blowing Crosby they are right there blowing Stamkos. (They don't even have to worry about Ovechkin this year because his scoring is so off pace.) Sometimes I think they just talk without actually thinking about what they said, in order to fill air time and linger on Crosby even when he's not playing. But something so insanely ridiculous as that suggestion was, even if it was off the cuff, just set me off. It goes to the very heart of why I don't like Crosby--he's a whiny little wimp of a player that doesn't play a full game. He doesn't hit. It goes to the very heart of what I hate about the NHL Network commentators because you better believe it wouldn't be the case if the injured player in question was from Nashville (I know this for a fact because we've had concussed players before, even ones that could have been considered our "stars"). It certainly wouldn't be the case if the one sitting out games right now was Ovechkin. And it goes to the very heart of what pisses me off about the NHL in general--that they want to sanitize the game to the point it's no longer a contact sport at all.
So, I'm sorry Pittsburgh that your star is currently unavailable to play. I'm sorry Crosby that you have a headache and are dizzy. But I'm not sorry for calling bullshit when I see it, and this is one of the clearest examples of bullshit that I've heard in a loooooooong time.
No comments:
Post a Comment