I Watched This Game: Canucks at Los Angeles Kings, December 31, 2011

The Canucks need to stop playing games right before holidays. This game fell on New Year’s Eve and it was their worst effort since their game against the Flames just before Christmas. If you have tickets to their game against the Phoenix Coyotes on February 13th, Valentine’s Eve, you’re better off just selling them on Craigslist. And if you’re planning on going to their game against the Calgary Flames on March 31st, better known as April Fool’s Eve, forget it.

Their last game of the regular season falls on April 7th, Easter Eve. Don’t watch that game. Let me watch it for you. Just like I watched this game.

Canucks 1 – 4 Kings

 

  • The best thing about this game is how frustrated the Canucks were with their performance. They knew they were awful, they knew it was unacceptable, and they owned up to it. Jannik Hansen said it best, “We were badly outshot and outplayed and outhit and out-just-about-anything in the first period.” They had no business being tied after 20 minutes, but Luongo made some tremendous saves to give them a chance to join him in playing this game. They didn’t take it.
  • Things didn’t actually look that bad early on, as the Canucks actually opened the scoring 3 minutes in with a rather pretty goal. Henrik made a nice pass to Daniel, who spun and delivered the puck into the high slot, where Kevin Bieksa unexpectedly appeared to wire a one-timer off the post and in. It was the first shot of the game and, as is usually the case with the first shot on New Year’s Eve, everything appeared to be just fine. It was only afterwards that things started spinning out of control; again, perfectly normal for New Year’s Eve.
  • The word of the day for the Kings was “aggressive.” They were aggressive on the forecheck, aggressive on the penalty kill, and aggressive going to the net. This aggression gave the Canucks fits trying to break out of the zone, severely limited their time and space on the powerplay, and frequently caught the defence flat-footed. Unfortunately, it’s likely that their aggressive behaviour between the whistles and behind the play will get more credit for the victory and the Canucks’ toughness is likely to be questioned yet again.
  • I was right; they were questioned. Henrik’s response: “We didn’t lose the final because we were pushed around, we lost because we couldn’t score.” Bingo. The Canucks didn’t lose this game because they were pushed around; they lost because they couldn’t prevent goals and couldn’t score them either. The nastiness, the scrums, the cheapshots – they were just a sideshow. Like a cow fetus in a jar, but less classy.
  • Somehow Tony Gallagher figures the perfect time to get Dale Weise more icetime is when the Canucks are trying to come back in the third period. It appears that he believes a fight is equivalent to a field goal.
  • Since it was their third game in four nights, pretty much every Canucks skater looked tired and out of sorts, but Cody Hodgson was arguably the worst of the lot. He had zero shot attempts despite over three-and-a-half minutes on the powerplay, went 0-for-6 on faceoffs, and was directly responsible for the Kings’ first goal when he lost track of his man, Brad Richardson, and allowed him two shots at a rebound a foot in front of the net. Luongo managed to stop the first, but Hodgson was far too late to prevent Richardson from lifting it over Luongo’s outstretched pad. But yes, Vigneault should definitely give him more minutes…
  • The Kings’ second goal came after a series of unfortunate events. After a mad scramble in front of the net, the puck squirted free to Daniel Sedin. Luongo lost his stick in the confusion in front of the net, so Ballard tried to give it back to him, assuming that Daniel wouldn’t do anything stupid. Luongo went to take the stick, also assuming that Daniel wouldn’t do anything stupid. He did something stupid. Instead of holding the puck in the corner, he chose to make a blind, backhand pass between his own legs, which immediately got intercepted by Andrei Loktionov, who passed it to Matt Greene, who shot it on net before Luongo could get set. Daniel Sedin absolutely cannot make that pass in that situation.
  • That’s when things got stupid: Brad Richardson decided to pointlessly bodycheck Henrik Sedin to the ice well after the goal was scored. This lead to a brouhaha, as Andrew Alberts went after Richardson, and everyone grabbed someone. Somehow, the only penalties were to Richardson and Ballard for roughing. It was not the last inexplicable decision by the referees in this game.
  • Henrik appeared to be the Kings’ favourite target for their antics. Previously in the game, Mike Richards slewfooted the Canucks captain while he was simultaneously being crosschecked by Dustin Brown. Brown was credited with a hit on the play.
  • I feel the need to emphasise this: these cheapshots had little to no impact on the outcome of the game. What did have an impact was the Canucks refusing to move their feet. The Kings’ third goal was the backbreaker, coming after the Canucks failed to score on a 4-minute double minor. Dan Hamhuis got caught standing at his blueline, turning a 3-on-2 into a 2-on-1. Kevin Bieksa, likewise, couldn’t decide between taking away the pass and checking the puck carrier, so did neither, allowing Anze Kopitar to slip in behind for an easy goal. My recommendation: tie helium balloons to their skates.
  • Cassie Campbell did the colour commentary for this game, something that is not normally her job, and she had a few rough patches. She clearly knows her hockey and could become a very good commentator in the future, but I find it frustrating that CBC treats Hockey Night in Canada as on-the-job training. They did it with Kevin Weekes and now they’re doing it with Campbell. HNIC is meant to be CBC’s flagship program, but they have no qualms about throwing rookies into situations where they’ll have trouble succeeding. Still, Cassie was, overall, no worse than Mark Lee.
  • She was dead wrong, however, when she called Daniel’s hooking penalty in the third period a good penalty. At that point, the Canucks were down just by two and had a chance to get back into the game. Unfortunately, Daniel stopped skating (a theme in this game) while backchecking on a 2-on-1 and coasted behind Jarret Stoll. He had no choice, then, but to blatantly hook Stoll to prevent the scoring chance. The Kings scored their 4th goal of the game on that powerplay. If Daniel keeps skating, he doesn’t have to take that penalty.
  • Campbell was completely in the right, though, when it came to commenting on Drew Doughty’s blatant dive on a Mason Raymond “slash” late in the third. As they showed the replay, there was a pregnant pause as Campbell realized what occurred and tried to avoid using the word “dive” in her commentary:  “…. Not too much there in my opinion, Mark. I always say, ‘when the player who’s falling down looks towards the ref, there might be something a little bit fishy.’ After everything that’s gone on in this hockey game, to call that penalty, I’m not sure I buy that.” It’s not quite Jack Edwards yelling at Roman Hamrlik to “Get up!” but it’s pretty clear what she thought about that call.
  • The worst moment of the sideshow came late in the third: with the game essentially out of reach, Kyle Clifford, who had 7 shifts for just over 5 minutes of icetime in this game, decided to try to goad Keith Ballard, of all people, into a fight. On Twitter, I referred to Clifford as a coward, which might have been a bit strong. After all, this is a guy who fought George Parros, Zenon Konopka, Shawn Thornton, and Brad Staubitz among his 18 fights last season. But going after Ballard, who is 5’11″ and had 3 fights  last season against Justin Abdelkader, Carlo Colaiacovo, and Chuck Kobasew, was a cowardly thing to do.
  • Other people on the ice that Clifford could have challenged: Mark Mancari – 6’3″. Maxim Lapierre – 6’2″. Andrew Alberts – 6’5″. Nope. Clifford went after the smallest guy on the ice in a game that was already over. Kyle “Sideshow Mel” Clifford. I’d rather have the cow fetus in a jar.
  • The Canucks were definitely frustrated by the end of this game, as typified by Jannik Hansen’s ugly crosscheck to Dustin Brown’s chin, but they seemed far more frustrated with their own lousy play than the tactics of the Kings. Though it seemed like they should have had more, Vancouver had a full 8 minutes of powerplay time, including a brief 4-on-3, and accomplished approximately jack squat. Of course, given the paucity of powerplays they’ve received of late, they might be a bit out of practice.
  • Finally, on a positive note, Mike Milbury has undergone a personality transplant. During the post-game show, he actually defended the Sedins and their willingness to take punishment to get powerplays. I’m mainly just astonished that he went a whole segment without calling them women.
Tags: , , , ,

34 comments

  1. Josh
    January 1, 2012

    Two points:

    One, I’m glad the Canucks got the bad game against the Kings out of their system so they’ll smoke them at home later this month when I’ll be in attendance.

    Two, Cassie Campbell is JUST SO CUTE when she commentates. It’s like I want to pinch her cheeks and tell her that she’s doing a great job. She is by no means a -bad- commentator, don’t get me wrong, but I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment that the CBC shouldn’t be doing it’s graduate training on HNIC.

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: 0 (from 4 votes)
    • smj
      January 1, 2012

      let’s not be quite so patronizing. She is not a child, she is a professional and I’m sure you wouldn’t make such a comment if it were a male commentator-in-training.

      VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
      Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)
      • Harrison Mooney
        January 1, 2012

        I’ll disagree with this. I’m the first guy to point out sexism and racism when it’s there, but this objection has nothing to do with Campbell being a woman. I was equally bothered when CBC did the same with Kevin Weekes, and it drives me bonkers when TSN adds yet another hockey player with no commentating experience whatsoever to the panel. It’s the pinnacle of the vocation: you should get there based on hard work and merit. It’s frustrating to see people given the opportunity when they haven’t earned it and aren’t ready for it yet.

        VN:F [1.9.16_1159]
        Rating: +5 (from 7 votes)
        • peanutflower
          January 1, 2012

          wasn’t Cassie between the benches for TSN in a recent Canucks game? Or am I mistaken? I thought she was sort of okay. She got better as the night progressed. I was really annoyed at first with some of her comments, but perhaps it was just because I was struggling to hear her over Mark Lee SHOUTING. I bought a radio today.

          VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
          Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)
          • Daniel Wagner
            January 1, 2012

            She has frequently been a third commentator, providing supplementary commentary during breaks. Those don’t require the kind of on-the-fly analysis that colour commentary demands.

            Honestly, I thought that Cassie wasn’t too bad, but there’s definitely a learning curve. There were some massive gaps where Mark Lee was clearly leaving space for colour commentary and she completely didn’t pick up on those opportunities. She got stuck doing rote play-by-play on some replays instead of providing an explanation of why something occurred or providing some alternative description of the action. She had a few great moments where she was up front and opinionated, and those moments were great. She tactfully point out Doughty’s dive and was honest with her opinion that she doesn’t like slashing calls on broken sticks because of how easily the new sticks break. I liked that she was free with her opinion on those calls and they indicate to me that she could become a good colour commentator. I just wish she wasn’t receiving on the job training, much like I didn’t appreciate Kevin Weekes learning the job on the fly.

            VN:F [1.9.16_1159]
            Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
      • Josh
        January 1, 2012

        It has nothing to do with her being a woman. Trust me. As pointed out, the same thing happened with Kevin Weekes. The point being that you shouldn’t use someone so inexperienced on your flagship program.

        And what? Boys can’t be cute, either?

        VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
        Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
  2. peanutflower
    January 1, 2012

    Well, welcome to the new and improved Sutter hillbilly hockey Kings, I guess. That game held remarkable similarities to some of the SCF games. It was really really bad. It was made even more bad by having to listen to Mark Lee. My New Year’s resolution is never to listen to the HNIC audio again if he’s the commentator. Ever. I know that the reason the Canucks lost was probably their fault, but they were certainly not given any assistance by the refereeing. The only bright moment came when Milbury spoke up for the Sedins. That was completely surprising. The Canucks better learn how to gird their loins for this kind of play, because this is obviously now the scouting book on how to beat them. I took an ill-advised trip onto the Kings HF boards — man, do other fans ever hate the Canucks. I’m sure that the lasting momento of that game will be a picture of Kesler kneeling in front of the ref begging for a call, thus forever perpetuating the perception of the Canucks as whiners and divers. And then for Richards to spend 5 minutes protesting the penalty when clearly Kesler was cut. Oh, wait, he cut himself, right? Just to get the call. Right. You add that to the double hit on Henrik, the phantom call on Raymond by that cheesebag Neon Dionne Doughty, little Keith getting the only penalty after getting pummelled, and the eight other (yes, I admit that I spent my new years counting) non-calls that happened right in front of the refs, and it just added up to a really poor night ot entertainment. My night further devolved into watching Knowing and wondering why 31/12/2011 didn’t show up on the list of disasters. But no, I still don’t think the Canucks need a goon. They just need to figure out how to get away from a game like this. They’d better figure it out quick.

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: +14 (from 24 votes)
    • Matt
      January 1, 2012

      I agree that Marc Lee was brutal. Clearly he didn’t spend as much time before the broadcast familiarizing himself with the teams and their players. I don’t know much about the Kings, but even I could tell how many times he was mis-calling the play. I didn’t mind Cassie Campbell–she’s pretty opinionated, and I kind of liked that–as with her saying, in essence, that Penner’s been largely a bust for LA this season. Then again, Penner’s line proceeded to put in a dominant performance, so maybe she shouldn’t have said that, after all.

      PS I feel about Mike Richards the way other teams feel about Kesler, Burrows and Lapierre. ‘Nuff said.

      VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
      Rating: +10 (from 10 votes)
  3. peanutflower
    January 1, 2012

    Wow, pretty long comment. Sorry.

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: +2 (from 4 votes)
  4. Cathylu
    January 1, 2012

    I was at the game. Started out great, ended bad. ‘Nuff said. But it did reinforce how much I despise the Kings (and their fans).

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: 0 (from 6 votes)
  5. chicken chick
    January 1, 2012

    Before the game Ms Jenny wrote
    This rather optimistic note:

    Canadians beat the USA
    The Canucks won down in LA
    A not so bad December day
    The last of O-Eleven, eh!

    But having seen I’ve this to say:
    The Kings are playing Sutter’s way.
    You saw it on your screen displayed,
    Canucks outmuscled and outplayed.

    Reminded me of playoffs past -
    I awoke to a sky overcast.

    HAPPY NEW YEAR!

    Chicken Chick

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: +1 (from 9 votes)
  6. Zach Morris
    January 1, 2012

    As long as we win the cup.

    That is my new mantra.

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: +3 (from 11 votes)
  7. Chinstrap Joe
    January 1, 2012

    To me, this is a “\Which came first – the chicken or the egg” type of situation. Did the Kings look great because the ‘nucks came out flat and were doing everything wrong or did the ‘nucks play terrible becasue the Kings played them physical, skated hard and got them off their game by getting in their collective faces?

    Henrik is right in that they didn’t win this game or the Boston series because they didn’t score enough goals but we come back to the “chicken/egg” thing of why didn’t they score enough goals?

    I think that most Canucks fans are intelligent enough to see that there is a pattern of the Canucks losing games to big, tough, nasty teams that play plenty of hockey after the whistle. I’m not convinced that they are losing these soley because their heads aren’t in the game.

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: +13 (from 15 votes)
    • Daniel Wagner
      January 1, 2012

      As I said in the post above, the Kings being aggressive on the forecheck, zone entries, and penalty kill had far more to do with their success than their cheapshots and dirty play. Playing physical and skating hard was what made them successful; the extra-curricular stuff was a sideshow.

      As for that being the gameplan to beat the Canucks, well that’s the gameplan to beat a lot of teams. If you play a physical game, skate hard, are aggressive on the forecheck, zone entries, and penalty kill, and don’t make mistakes, you’ll win a lot of games. The cheapshots were unneccessary but are perhaps a side-effect of the style of play.

      The Canucks don’t need an answer for the cheapshots, as those should lead to powerplays. They do need an answer to the aggressive forecheck. They do need an answer to a penalty kill that gives them no time and space with the puck. They already have the answer to the aggressive zone entries: move your damn feet.

      Plenty of teams try to play this way against the Canucks. In fact, pretty much every team tries to play this way against the Canucks. The Canucks win a lot of games. Don’t take one game and extrapolate.

      VN:F [1.9.16_1159]
      Rating: +10 (from 12 votes)
      • Wagman
        January 1, 2012

        I have to agree. When the Canucks are aggressive on the forecheck and penalty kills, following through on hits, and generally skating hard, they don’t tend to lose very often. (This is probably true of any top 10 team.) This game and the Flames on Christmas Eve had very little hitting by the Canucks, and a general lack of enthusiasm on the forecheck; the results were not much of a surprise. It may not have helped that they scored so early in the game; it looked to me like they might have relaxed a little rather than pushing harder. As for the extracurricular activities, the only thing that happens when you cheapshot back is you put your team down a player for 2+ minutes. That doesn’t help you win games.

        VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
        Rating: +2 (from 4 votes)
      • Chinstrap Joe
        January 1, 2012

        Not extrapolating from a single game, Daniel. Beleive it or not, some of us mouth breathing, knuckle dragging fans pay real money to watch all the games and can see patterns of play and form well reasoned opinions. Your arrogance toward those you disagree with is tiresome.

        VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
        Rating: -10 (from 10 votes)
        • Daniel Wagner
          January 1, 2012

          I had no intention of being arrogant and I sincerely apologize if that was the impression I gave. I just disagree with your conclusion.

          At no point did I call you a mouth breather or a knuckle dragger or anything else that would imply you were stupid; I’m a little offended by that. All I was trying to do was disagree with you.

          VN:F [1.9.16_1159]
          Rating: +9 (from 11 votes)
      • pheenster
        January 2, 2012

        I don’t disagree with your statement that cheapshots should lead to power plays, but the sad fact is that they don’t always, and when they do the power play isn’t always on. In that scenario, there has to be an answer and last night it appeared that the Canucks didn’t have one.

        The power play is supposed to be The Deterrent, but if it’s either kept mostly in the barn by bad officiating, or not firing on the required number of cylinders (or, worst-case scneaio, both) then there is no deterrent and it turns into open season. We all know that the deeper we get into the playoffs the whistles get put away, “let the players decide it”, etc. There needs to be an answer or this organization runs the risk of history repeating itself.

        My first post on PITB and I hope it makes some sense. Excellent blog guys, keep up the good work.

        VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
        Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
        • Daniel Wagner
          January 2, 2012

          New commenter! Woo!

          I get what you’re saying, but what’s the solution? A goon that suits up for 5 minutes a night? I just don’t think that will accomplish anything. In this era of the NHL, I don’t think a goon is an actual deterrent. Detroit’s gotten away without dressing a goon for years now, and it’s worked for them.

          I think you nailed it, however, when you say that it’s not a deterrent when the Canucks aren’t playing well. Unfortunately, if the Canucks aren’t playing well they’re not going to win anyways. I’m far more confident in the Canucks’ ability to play well than I am in a goon deterring cheapshots. I’m not sure that the Canucks need an answer to the cheapshots when they’re not playing well because it doesn’t actually make a difference.

          VN:F [1.9.16_1159]
          Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
        • Harrison Mooney
          January 2, 2012

          Welcome to PITB, pheenster. We are the exact opposite of Fight Club.

          VN:F [1.9.16_1159]
          Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
          • pheenster
            January 3, 2012

            Accordingly, I will talk about PITB as much as possible. :)

            A couple of days late here but I wanted to follow up my comment and Daniel’s reply. I don’t think there’s room on the Canucks for goon either. I do think, though, that there’s room for a guy with enough skill to play the Canucks system, the right personality to fit into the room AND the ability to take care of business when the situation demands it. I believe that’s the guy they’re missing; I do realize that you can count the number of guys who fit that bill on one hand (two at the most), and teams which have them aren’t in a hurry to give them up, less so if they come with a reasonable price tag. This is why I was hoping that Owen Nolan would have enough left in the tank to make a meaningful contribution.

            VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    • Nee
      January 1, 2012

      It seems to me that when the Canucks are on their game, they are skating quickly and controlling the pace. Teams can’t catch them to manhandle them, and when they step out of line, we make them pay on the power play.

      In the BOS series, they didn’t score enough goals. They also had a number of key injuries that made it hard for the Canucks to execute their system. Losing Hamhuis (one half of their top D pair and shutdown team). Edler playing with broken fingers. Ehrhoff with a bad shoulder. Higgins with an injured foot. Malhotra just back from a horrific eye injury. Kesler playing at much less than 100%.

      When the Canucks are healthy and executing their system the way they can, they are able to punish teams on the score board and ward off this type of chippy play.

      At least that’s my take on it.

      VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
      Rating: +6 (from 6 votes)
  8. John in Marpole
    January 1, 2012

    Not a big surprise, really, that CBC uses the late game on HNIC to give on the job training to rookie color analysts paired up with their weakest – by far – play by play commentator. They’d never do that for their Leaf coverage.

    Tony Gallagher seems to be determined to prove himself the least knowledgable hockey writer on the planet. I’m just thankful that his latest column isn’t promoting his latest conspiracy theory involving AV’s determined campaign to cause Cody Hodgeson to fail through a lack of top 6 quality ice-time.

    No doubt his next missive will explain why Hodgeson’s poor performance is AV’s fault…

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: +7 (from 7 votes)
  9. JM
    January 1, 2012

    Both announcers were awful. Everything that makes guys like Shorty and Garrett so fun to listen to was completely lost on them.

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: +8 (from 10 votes)
  10. Kate
    January 1, 2012

    Such a frustrating game to watch, the tag “everyone sucked tonight” is sadly mostly true. Before I say this, I am a huge Ryan Kesler fan, he works hard and is in general amazing. However, I admit, when his head flew back on that Mike Richards high stick, I was like whyy Ryan WHY do you have to do this…and then it turned out he was actually cut and I felt bad for doubting him. The thing about that is so many players do that, they whip their heads back and then stick their fingers in their mouths “am I bleeding, am I bleeding?” Kneeling in front of the ref doesn’t look good, but at least he actually was cut, anyways, just wishing they could embrace last years discipline a little more, you can see it slipping even in the games they win.

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: +2 (from 6 votes)
    • Nee
      January 1, 2012

      I felt the same about the Kesler high-stick. If Canucks fans are looking at Kesler with some skepticism, you can bet the officials are too. Not that Kesler is the only one doing this, or that he does it all the time, but I really hate it. He’s an awesome hockey player…he doesn’t need to exagerrate to get calls, like he sometimes does. Or at least, he doesn’t need to be so theatrical about it.

      LOVE Kesler, but I think he would help the team if he toned down this part of his game.

      VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
      Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
  11. Rich
    January 1, 2012

    Jim Hughson is arguably the best hockey play-by-play guy in the business, but I just hate his partner, Craig Simpson’s, commentary on CBC. He chatters non-stop, he might know a lot about the Ontario teams but doesn’t seem prepared to give insightful analyses of western conference teams, and he is excessively negative about whatever team happens to be behind on the scoreboard at any given time.

    Cassie Campbell wasn’t great doing the Vancouver/LA game, but I appreciated that she didn’t feel the need to talk ALL the time like a lot of color commentators.

    The best of the baseball color guys speak when they’ve got something that’s insightful and worth listening to. And they stay silent otherwise. If Cassie Campbell develops that; and can resist the temptation to fill the air with inane, repetitious chatter; she could be good.

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
  12. akidd
    January 1, 2012

    i get your points daniel and don’t disagree. you see the game well. the kings had more jump and that’s why they won. i also understand that as a pro you don’t want to get a rep as a ‘whiner’( shame-control rhetoric for ‘someone who criticizes’,) unfortunately i think that the result is that you are self-muzzling. the truth is the truth and anyone who watched this game saw thuggery go unpunished. if you choose to ignore that in favour of membership in some macho club(pro sports journos) then you are allowing yourself to be controlled. we need your independent voice. we need strong objective local journalism. the national media certainly won’t stick up for the canucks(as we saw in the playoffs) so it’s left to you. don’t let them ‘shame you back to the kitchen’. as unpopular as it may be you need to just call it as you see it. wishy-washy diplomacy doesn’t do anyone any favours, just ask the political left of this country, uh, make that centre-left, wait just centre now, uh, probably centre-right actually compared with the europeans. cheers.

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: +2 (from 4 votes)
    • Daniel Wagner
      January 1, 2012

      Was I being wishy-washy? If so, it was not intentional. I tend to be forgiving of referees to a certain extent because of how difficult I know their job is, but I definitely didn’t like the way they called this game. As a soccer referee and baseball umpire, I recognize that hockey referees have a damnably difficult job to do that is nowhere near as easy to call on the ice as it seems to be from the stands or the couch.

      I wrote an article at Backhand Shelf on why I appreciate referees and often defend them. I can’t defend, however, the way they called this game. But there’s a reason I called their actions “inexplicable” rather than some more pejorative term.

      VN:F [1.9.16_1159]
      Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
      • akidd
        January 1, 2012

        thanks for the response, daniel. basically, i see the sedins as pioneers, jackie robinsons, playing a pure skill game in a violent, macho world. i see them as being persecuted for their non-violent stance. when richardson, in plain view, knocked henrik over in celebration of the LA goal and wasn’t given the extra penalty it was yet another demonstration of the ‘old boys’ club’ at work. same goes for the joe thorton finger episode. you can call it ‘inexplicable’ if you like but to me it is clearly discrimination. and the offenders need to loudly and clearly called out for it.

        VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
        Rating: +5 (from 7 votes)
        • whisky jack
          January 1, 2012

          The league is ruled by dinosaurs
          Adherents of the age old story
          No Pain No Gain No Guts No Glory
          Destroy The Dork Before He Scores

          Whisky Jack

          VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
          Rating: +3 (from 5 votes)
        • peanutflower
          January 1, 2012

          Maybe they should wear a white feather.

          VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    • stathead
      January 1, 2012

      I think Daniel is definitely calling it as he sees it. Maybe what you’re perceiving as wishy-washy is the use of more tempered language to describe facts & opinions that are typically expressed with more… salt. I like this blog because of that, & judging from the good quality of the comments compared to some of the vitriol and bile in comments on other sites, a lot of other smart fans do too. Best example is the PITB piece (not sure whose) on bias in sports journalism that was written back in June, which was the first time I read these guys and was like a weight off my chest, laying out why I felt troubled about the SC coverage so clearly and reasonably instead of impassioned ranting. It needed to be said, but it especially needed to be said with restraint, logic, and balance- well, with what the journalism industry claims to speak with, but doesn’t always. Using language like “thuggery goes unpunished” about this game is v satisfying, but is preaching to the choir, with every non-hardcore Canuck fan just rolling their eyes at yet another guy who, though not mouth breathing, is definitely mouth foaming (with rage). I respect how these guys don’t back off from saying when they think calls were bad or embellishments were used on either side, but make the comment once in its place (sometimes a very creative place – cow fetus in a jar? Is that a Firefly reference? Hope so.) and then move on. I like reading this type of piece, and I have never seen it anywhere but here.

      PITB chaps, feel free to forward this comment to Sun bosses to show you have a loyal readership. I’ll keep clicking on your articles if you keep writing them – deal? Keep up the good work, esp IWTG and goal breakdowning. Sometimes it’s the only way I can tell how we won – and then it’s doubly cool that we won.

      VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
      Rating: +9 (from 9 votes)
      • tom selleck's moustache
        January 1, 2012

        That piece on bias was written by Mooney; I stumbled upon it well after the playoffs were over. But I agree; it was a spot on piece of writing that brilliantly pointed out the problems with the media coverage during the SC playoffs.

        VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
        Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)