Stanley Cup

mash100 wrote:

I just saw the news - shocking pictures of game's aftermath. Reminds me of the dark days of football hooliganism in Britain back in the 80s. What's with all the mindless vandalism just for a game?????
A bit cr*p really.............

That isn't hockey fans or even about hockey. I saw video of people dressed in their rioting gear before the game ever started, for Christ's sakes. The media talking it up days in advance to inspire any asshole that already hadn't thought of it didn't help any.

No doubt some are fans, but also no doubt most just looking for an opportunity to have a riot, vandalize, loot, and destroy other people's property with miniscule chance of apprehension or retribution by the owners. Back in my cop days prior to the military, we had to deal with the riots in the Okanagan related to a summer festival of all things. No sports event involved, nothing to do with it. That ended the second year when the courts came down hard on those we arrested and charged. There were other changes, but all the brave looters and vandals didn't want to play anymore after they saw there might be a heavy price to pay.

I'm trying to imagine that kind of stuff going on in Montana, or Idaho, or Wyoming... nah, couple of shots, couple of assholes down bleeding out and kicking, and all the brave anarchists would be running for home shitting their pants in fear. Problem solved. BC has a problem with this shit because they choose to allow the courts to be permissive about this shit.

Were I a businessman on Robson Street last night, my solution would have been to visit the local Hell's Angels Vancouver Chapter or some other equally friendly bunch and offer the five biggest guys $1000 each to stand in front of my business from about the second period until midnight. Go ahead... throw that rock, asshole. No? Didn't think so. When acts have predictable consequences, people suddenly become much more civil and law abiding.

British Columbia, unfortunately, has taken a stance in being permissive with how they deal with rioters over the last couple of decades. And those who look for every opportunity to pull this shit have had that underscored for them in how the courts have dealt with rioters in other recent riots. Rioting can still draw a life sentence in Canada, and yet the courts will rarely convict and only hand out months-long sentences normally when they do.

Many of those convicted of last nights events will be convicted with clear video evidence of what they were doing. If the courts turned around and for once handed out some sentences in the 20 year range to a couple of dozen rioters, serving notice the province was tired of this crap, things would change. That will offend those who think it is far too harsh a sentence for just being one person among those deliberately and maliciously destroying some unknown person's livelihood, but if you don't make the consequences predictable, nothing will change.

motokid wrote:

We're unbiased hockey fans watching a Stanley Cup finals game.

But...

motokid wrote:

and always enjoying watching a Canadian team lose to an American team

Okay then... with the question of impartiality out of the way...

Quote :

Luongo is a cry baby

What, exactly, did he say to cause you to say that. I have watched very little of the coverage and none of the games end to end, so I haven't seen any of what you have while you were enjoying watching an American team of mostly Canadian players beat a Canadian team with mostly Canadian players. Mostly I play hockey, I don't watch it much since it became all about cycling the puck.

Quote :

Didn't a Canuck actually BITE the finger of a Bruin?

Yeah, he did - and I did see that footage.

Again and again and again. The Dick Rule applies here: never put your finger where you wouldn't put your dick. Deliberately stick your finger in another guy's mouth to try and fishhook him, and WTF do you really, seriously think he is going to do about it?

I played Junior hockey and still play over 35 years later, and my educated bet is you have played little hockey, if ever at all. Enjoying watching it is not the same as understanding it in depth. There's a code of conduct in hockey that goes beyond the rulebook. You don't, ever, kick. You don't gouge at guy's eyes. And you sure as hell don't try to fishhook them with a glove that often has kevlar or steel inserts. If your excuse is that you were just trying the old face wash, and didn't realize you were shoving your gloved fingers in this mouth, then it sucks to be you.

So you're offended that he got bit after sticking his gloved finger in another guy's mouth? I appreciate Lynn's sentiments that she would have bit it off. But if either of you bother to take an experimental chomp on a hockey glove, it won't take you long to figure out that you'd need to be a Rottweiler before you're going to bite a finger off in a hockey glove through all that armour.

Fans are pissed that he got bit. Hockey players are pissed that the asshole fishhooked the other guy in the first place - and would be no matter which team he was on. Even your own guys aren't going to think much of you when you do the off limits stuff. Stick your gloved fingers in my mouth on the rink, and I'll take the punch to drop my hands and grab those fingers and do my level best to break them all back against your wrist. What the hell Burrows thought biting an armoured hockey glove would accomplish, I have no idea.

Quote :

Didn't Luongo open his big fat yap in a press conference and spout some bullshit about Thomas?

Yeah. He said Thomas might have stopped that puck IF his style was like Luongo's. Which got everyone in an uproar, apparently choosing to ignore the fact that Luongo had complimented Thomas on his play numerous times before that. Why weren't the "big fat yap" comments coming out when Luongo was complementing Thomas on his play? Unbiased viewing, perhaps?

And Luongo was right - his style of play on that goal probably would have stopped that puck. No style of goaltending, butterfly or stand up or whatever, is best for all defensive situations. In that one particular, isolated instance that was being referred to, Luongo's style probably would have been better. Most knowledgeable fans would see that, while at the same time recognizing that Thomas's style of play was better over the entire Stanley Cup series. And that's all there is to that.

If we're talking about "big fat yaps", perhaps the outraged should ask themselves why Luongo complemented Thomas and his ability a number of times up to then while Thomas said little to nothing positive about Luongo. Not that any are obligated to, but the idea that Luongo was blowing Thomas off is ridiculous. Helps get the Boston fans pumped up, though!

Quote :

The hit on Horton?

Was, as even the NHL acknowledged while saying they had to call it "just a fraction late". This is a game where professional hockey players can sprint at speeds approaching 30 miles an hour for very short distances, with the game commonly played at 20 mph. What's that? Something like 22 fps - combined closing speeds of as much as 44 fps? Horton had his head down, which is suicide in competitive hockey as Rome was lining him up all the way; he passed off halfway between the center and blue lines, and then got hit right at the blue line - 12' later. At the closing speeds they had.

Furthermore, the possession of the puck rule states that Horton is the man in possession of the puck and thus fair game for being checked - even with his head down or while looking away admiring his pass (both of which he was doing) - until the next player touches the puck. Which was about a fraction of a second before Rome hit him. Without that fraction of a second, if the distance that pass travelled had been five whole feet longer, that is a perfectly clean hit. But at those closing speeds, for the outraged Boston fans and namby pamby bloggers out on the Internet continually talking about violence in hockey, that fraction of a second doesn't matter and it is somehow or other a calculated, deliberate late hit.

Today's players are way, way faster than they ever were when I was competitive - and way, way bigger... with much harder equipment than we wore. Bigger bodies at faster closing speeds with harder equipment is going to result in more serious injuries. And with very few serious injuries coming from illegal hits, nobody has any idea of how to stop it without fundamentally changing the game with unintended consequences. For example, you can change the possession rule to say you are no longer in possession as soon as it leaves your stick - and in no time guys would be setting themselves up to take a hit and passing an instant before contact in order to draw a penalty. Just as they deliberately turn their backs now to draw a hitting from behind penalty.

Will be interesting to see what changes Brendan Shanahan might bring when he takes over NHL discipline from Campbell next year.

Quote :

Let hockey be hockey, and let's pull up our big-boy britches.

Good idea. Let's quit pretending that Boston wasn't the best behaved team on the ice, or that we didn't notice Thomas repeatedly slashing Vancouver players legally in front of him, out of his crease. Or all the other Boston crap beyond hard physical hockey while composing a laundry list of what Vancouver might have done:



Boston is a much more physically aggressive team than Vancouver, and this had a lot to do with their ability to make Vancouver play their game and for Boston to ultimately win the cup. They got Vancouver to abandon the skill game to come down to their level and try and match them in the physical game. And once that happened, Vancouver fairly predictably lost

The games were pretty dirty on both sides, the zebras did nothing about it, and if you're a stickler believing it should be played within the rules, nobody skated with the angels. For whatever reason, however, the media focus on this was all about Vancouver, with Boston apparently just soldiering on in the face of such nasty Vancouver play.

Vancouver had the ability to win the series, particularly after the gift of starting out two up. They're pro players, they're experienced, and they know how the game works and that Boston is going to try and get them off their stride. For competitive hockey players, this is a story as old as the game. They didn't deal with that, and as nasty as the games were being played, nobody took the price of running Thomas through the back of the net a few times to try and put him off his game when they know he has a temper. While Boston certainly did what was necessary to throw Luongo off his. Not to mention ensuring the Sedins, Burrows, and Kestler in particular never really got rolling.

From what little I saw, aside from the usual highlights, Boston deserved to win. They outgritted Vancouver and led Vancouver into trying to match their physically rough game instead of doing what they do best and trying to make Boston play a Vancouver game. So while I might have liked a BC team to win the Cup (not because local players like the Niedermayers bring the Cup back here practically every year for those who want to see), Boston deservedly won. If there's a good individual story in it, it's Thomas winning the cup after the career journey he has taken to arrive at this point.

That probably was the difference in moving Thomas past Kestler for the Conn Smyth, and it was well deserved. If Vancouver - or any other team - had taken Thomas off his game during the playoffs, Boston didn't have the goaltending to even make it to the final.

Thomas is the story of the Stanley Cup going to Boston. His agent must have one hell of a hangover this morning.