If I were Gary Bettman, I'd be paying close attention to what ESPN's John Buccigross is writing and saying these days, because the thoughts that are his alone today, will start appearing on the lips of dedicated hockey fans (at least in the U.S.) tomorrow.
Back on October 19, Buccigross had this to say:
The game is fast. Up and down. At times, it almost looked like an All-Star Game, and that is not good. They need to find a way to keep the battle in the game without taking away the speed and stickhandling. Mickey [Melchiondo of the band Ween] was skeptical. He said he enjoyed the territorial game but didn't embrace the new flow.
And last night on SportsCenter, Buccigross was narrating the highlights from the Rangers-Canadiens game. After mentioning that Jaromir Jagr was taking advantage of the crackdown on obstruction, Buccigross said it looked like the league was enforcing "borderline soccer rules."
Boy did my ears prick up when I heard that, and I know for a fact that it's going to resonate with plenty of hockey fans.
Don't get me wrong, I love Soccer, but the chronic diving and faking of injuries is part of the sport that I can't stand. And whenever I've watched games with other folks who have played hockey, it was easy to see the disdain they had for diving.
The fact is, with possibly the exception of Larry Brooks, there isn't any other prominent national sports columnist in the states who covers hockey with as much passion as Buccigross. He's made friendships with players and management. On SportsCenter and on the Web, he's got a platform to crtique the game as freely as anyone -- especially so now that ESPN isn't the league's television partner any longer.
OBSTRUCTION POSTSCRIPT: A few weeks ago on a TSN broadcast, somebody mentioned that Daryl Sydor of Tampa Bay said that something had to be done about goalies getting rushed, and specifically mentioned that while he was fine with cracking down on obstruction in the neutral zone, that the refs needed to be considerably more lenient once the play got below the faceoff circles.
Luckily for the league, there is a way out. By starting off with a strict interpretation of obstruction, they can loosen things up a little later on without much fanfare.
But had the league gone the other way, and not cracked down hard enough on obstruction, there would have been Hell to pay from the fans and the press. Instead of headlines about the "New NHL" we'd be seeing headlines about the "Same old NHL". Click here for an example of what I'm talking about.
Of course, that has nothing to do with whether or not the critique has merit -- and I think to a certain extent it does. But in this case, while the charge has credibility, the volume has been considerably muted. I think I can understand why they made the choice that they did.
UPDATE: Ross McKeon of the San Francisco Chronicle makes a point that I don't have an answer to:
There are no physical battles for position in front of the net between defensemen and attacking players without the puck. Teams have figured out there's a scoring chance to be had every time if they screen the goalie with one or more skaters and they can wait for someone to wrist a puck on net from the point. More of a price should be paid to gain that position in front. But we're at a loss to suggest how fouls on one patch of the ice can be allowed when they're illegal everywhere else.
Something to think about.
I’ve noticed the problem, and while I’m not yet convinced it requires a radical solution, it seems to me that basketball’s three-in-the-key rule offers an applicable answer to an analogous problem.
I think that the new rules interpretations have made diving largly obsolete as a tactic as nearly every brushing contact results in a penalty. What is the point of a swerving dive when the refs are going to call a penalty for slight stick contact anyway? Yes,the area in front of the goal resembles a no contact allowed zone but defensemen will come up with tactics to counteract goal hanging forwards. Flow has been returned to the NHL and other criticisms pall before that fact. Vulnerable goalies will still be protected by aggressive teammates. Physical play has not vanished just look at the bandaged noses of Domi & Belak in yesterdays Globe & Mail.
Very interesting post. Only one problem, he cites the lack of physical contact as one of the negatives of soccer. Tell him to come to an Earthquakes game. With about 3/4th the size or less of a European pitch, it is all about physical contact with the 50/50 balls. The Galaxy hip check on Mark Chung just after the half last weekend was the biggest one I have seen all year from the MLS or the NHL.
But diving is a horrible problem for the MLS. Not just that, but the fake writhing in pain for a few seconds after as well.
With the speed and the pace of the action on the ice at the NHL level, it has to be difficult to discern what is a legitimate obstruction, and what is an embellished dive when it happens at that speed.
Kukla’s Korner published a link that said the league office was reviewing games after the fact and doling out fines. But what about bringing back the diving list? A little unorthidox, but I think it would help clean up the worst offenders.
First, I concur with the rationale that it is better that the refs call all obstruction otherwise the criticisms would come fast and furious about the NHL not fulfilling their promise. As a former soccer referee in the NASL, MISL and the NCAA, I can tell you it is much easier to be consistent when rules are mandated by the league rather than left to the interpretation of the game official.
Second, I recall sitting in a ref’s clinic in the Major Indoor Soccer league where some game officials from the NHL were invited to speak to discuss the similarities and differences in officiating the two sports. What became “crystal” to all of us was that the NHL proscribed officials from making penalty calls in the last 5 minutes of a game…begs the question about consistency in the game?
Third: To all the purists who are bemoaning the lack of hitting and the lack of fighting for position in front of the net, I remind you that hockey was in the doldrums from both a popularity perspective and a financial one. Indeed, the sport that nearly supplanted basketball as the third most popular professional team sport in 1994, became less popular than NASCAR 10 years later. Why? Well it is always easier to create defensive tactics to deter skill than the other way around. Add to it the lack of rules enforcement, larger equipment, etc and you got the demise of a great sport. Bottom line: the NHL is a business. It could not grow under the operational model it was providing; therefore, it had to change. And while I believe that the sport will eventually lighten up on some of the rule changes in order that some of the positive aspects of the former NHL will be allowed; trust me, the NHL cannot afford the trap, dump, clutching and holding, etc., tactics to recur as it will be its death knell. Teams/players will have to adapt or suffer the consequences…..Remember it’s about the money!