NHL 2010-2011: Rick Rypien

Bruce Arthur read my mind about the Stanley Cup Finals, though I still think Vancouver are the lesser of the two evils:

http://sports.nationalpost.com/2011/...

Morro wrote:
Dysplastic wrote:
Mimble wrote:

And this "right way" to the play game crap! Really? Making the game safer so the game can be about hockey and not punching someones lights out is "pansification of hockey"? I'd rather watch them play a good clean game than fight and shout obscenities at each other. If I want to watch two dudes deliberately hurt each other, I'll watch UFC - at least they know that's the sole purpose of the thing.

Plus two million. I honestly think the biggest thing here is applying harsher and more consistent suspensions for dangerous and violent plays. Right now the league is all over the place so players might feel that such play is somewhat tolerated. The league needs to send a clear signal that it is absolutely not. When Rome's agent talks about appealing the suspension, citing precedent, I can absolutely see where he's coming from.

I think the argument is that, by de-emphasizing fighting so heavily, you break the game at some essential level. I mean, this is a game where 250lb men get up to 40+ km per hour and smash each other into hard wooden walls. It's naive to think that such a game can continue to exist without an outlet for the emotions it produces, or without a way for players to enforce a system of retribution for the abuses it allows. Honestly, I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that the near-ban on fighting the league is trying to institute will directly lead to more injuries of the dirty-hit variety. Let the players get their emotions out, and put more of the control of the players into the players' own hands. The refs should not be directing the emotional leanings of the entire league; that's not what they exist to do. It's not about pussification, it's about a total disregard for the reasons these practices entered the game, in the first place. The league can't survive by ignoring its own basic nature just to make it more mom-friendly for ratings.

I definitely understand that there will be contact in hockey - as you said, these huge guys are going pretty bloody fast - contact is going to happen. What I'd like to know is this: why is the necessary contact the game produces not enough as an "outlet for the emotions it produces"? I've never played hockey, and obviously never played at the professional level, but any team sports I have played, I've never had the urge to throw down with a member of the other team - even when they were total a**holes (for example, I once got body checked during a game of Ultimate - and that's a non-contact sport! I thought he was an ass, I was bruised and angry - he was twice my size, it hurt - but no one called for his blood, he was told to sit out for the rest of the game).

I know there are rules governing fighting (no gloves, no sticks, obeying the referee once separated etc.) and I know there are penalties too - assuming the instigator was seen and assuming the referee calls it - but I guess I just don't understand the need to go beyond that necessary contact - even when emotions are high and there's a lot at stake (the Stanley Cup, say).

Perhaps banning fighting would result in players making dirty hits, and increase the occurrence of serious injury, hell, it probably will because fighting is seen as such a part of the game whether I like it or not. I do agree that the refs shouldn't be directing the players emotional leanings - the players should do that themselves, in a way that doesn't involve punching a guy out because he's angry or emotional.

I know this is a blanket generalization, and I'm sure there are probably other sports where people play dirty and hurt each other all the time, but there are sports where that isn't the norm: golf, baseball etc. I've seen Tiger Woods look angry enough to have a real fit to relieve his feelings, but he's never taken a swing at some idiot in the audience who broke his concentration, or punched someone in the face because he was feeling emotional about the US Open.

I'm not asking for the guys to tip their helmets at each other and take turns scoring - I'd just like to see more hockey and less unnecessary school yard antics.

I also have to say that I haven't read all the NHL rules, nor do I know a great deal about the history of the game, so I may, in fact, be talking out of my arse.

Roke wrote:

Bruce Arthur read my mind about the Stanley Cup Finals, though I still think Vancouver are the lesser of the two evils:

http://sports.nationalpost.com/2011/...

Great article.

Roke wrote:

Bruce Arthur read my mind about the Stanley Cup Finals, though I still think Vancouver are the lesser of the two evils:

http://sports.nationalpost.com/2011/...

I'd like to recreate this for the NBA as well. Hey, it's THE EVIL HEATLES WHO ARE EVIL BECAUSE LEBRON LEFT CLEVELAND IN A DOUCHEY WAY vs. a convicted domestic abuser.

Please god, stop people, just stop.

EDIT: Check that, recreate it for every major sport.

Really weird how different the Vancouver home games are from the Boston ones.

Impressive game by Luongo tonight, and really it was an impressive game by Thomas too. When these teams aren't being complete jackasses towards each other there is some really great hockey being played. Regardless of which team wins I think it's difficult to put anyone but the goalies as front runners for the Conn Smythe with a bit of an edge to Thomas.

Edit: Yes, I realize there was a bit of a question as to who would start for the Canucks tonight after the past two games, but I think going with Lou was certainly the right choice and he has been a big factor in the Canucks' success thus far.

4xis.black wrote:

Really weird how different the Vancouver home games are from the Boston ones.

Yup, that's exactly the kind of hockey that the Canucks will be successful with. Hope they can bring that to Boston this time and finish it off.

Straight out of Slapshot:

IMAGE(http://www.prohockeynews.com/hockey/uploads/1/shreveport_mudbugs_1999_1.gif)

BOSSIER CITY, LA – The Presidents’ Cup Champion Bossier-Shreveport Mudbugs of the Central Hockey League regret to announce tonight that due to severe economic conditions and the limited timeline imposed to secure sufficient revenue for the upcoming season, the team will be forced to cease operations after 14 remarkably successful seasons in Bossier-Shreveport.

Despite tonight’s unfortunate announcement, the Mudbugs will remain open for business throughout the month of June while season ticket deposits and playoff rollover money is refunded to fans in full.

“The first thing Leslie and I want to do is thank all the fans for the outpouring of support we have received over the past week,” said Owner Tommy Scott on behalf of his family. “It’s been amazing how those people have stepped up to try and save Mudbugs Hockey. Unfortunately, time was our biggest enemy as we were forced to decide tonight about continuing and just were not able to get all the pieces put together quickly enough.”

Oh Boston, why can't you carry your offense into Canada?

thejustinbot wrote:

Oh Boston, why can't you carry your offense into Canada?

Because Vancouver immediately forgets what makes them successful the moment they get to Boston.

Feeling pretty bad for Luongo right now. Sitting on the bench, miserable, while watching his replacement and listening to the Bruins fans taunt him.

That has to suck. A lot.

This is a total goals series right?

Well, at least Vancouver knows how to play at home.

So, that game just sucked. Not sure why they forget how to play, when in Boston.
Well, at least they can take the Cup at home then...right? Must be a higher level of
tactics going on there, or something.

Even if we win, Luongo has cemented a permanent reputation as a choker. After inconsistent play in the Gold Medal game, 2 playoff runs featuring intermittent but dazzling goaltending collapses, and some really phenominal breakdowns throughout this one, he really will never be depended upon in this city. People will always say his name with a roll of the eyes: "He's good of course but... you know..."

With Schneider in net, the game was a tie. Just saying.

On the bright side, still time for the series to be cancelled.

Edit: Scoring Chances for Game 6. Third time this series Boston has out-chanced Vancouver at even-strength: Vancouver with the even-strength edge of +4 in the series.

Going in to the series if you'd have told me the Bruins would be playing a game 7 I'd have been very happily surprised. Most if not all of the experts had Vancouver winning the series easily. All the talk was about how dominant the Western Conference style of play is.

Given the results in Vancouver to date you have to favor the Canucks in game 7, but I'm really hoping they play Luongo, he's still shell shocked, and he spots the Bruins two before getting yanked.

It's been a good ride though.

SwampYankee wrote:

Given the results in Vancouver to date you have to favor the Canucks in game 7, but I'm really hoping they play Luongo, he's still shell shocked, and he spots the Bruins two before getting yanked.

It's been a good ride though.

The safe bet is to say Canucks win by 1 goal.

However the Canucks defense continues to get thinner. If the Bruins can muster the energy they have lacked in the other games in Vancouver, we could see a very different kind of game. If the Bruins find a way to capitalize on the depleted defense the Sedins must respond by getting the puck to the net for VAN... which once again makes Thomas the Timmy-on-the-spot.

Tim Thomas is going to win the Conn Smythe - regardless of who wins the cup. If Vancouver wins, they really don't have anyone who has performed consistently well through the playoffs to deserve it. If Boston wins, how could you not give it to Thomas?

I've no idea who will win Game 7. Which Vancouver team is going to show up?

I do think that Game 6 was closer than the score showed. Vancouver had some bad bounces and Thomas made some timely saves to really deflate the 'Nucks. That's no excuse for Vancouver, who really should have played better, but there were a few moments in that game that could have changed the momentum entirely.

I'm going to game 7...I feel strangely numb.

Vector wrote:

I'm going to game 7...I feel strangely numb.

Oh my. Is there an iPhone app that will broadcast your EKG constantly so we can live vicariously through you?

Man, when Vancouver decides to lay a turd (read: when they visit Boston) they crank out a doozy. It's hard to picture them with The Cup getting blown out in Boston every time, then pulling out one goal wins from the crack of their rears at home. All the Broons need is one more lucky bounce in Canuckistan to bring home the metal. Game 7 should be something.

Either way, Vancouver's going to go crazy after game seven. I just hope it's good crazy.

Also I hope Raymond's ok, that looked really painful. News reports are saying he fractured a vertebra.

It seemed like one of the more awkward contacts. I was surprised he wasn't backboarded.

I'm more upset that the Boston fans were chanting "Go Bruins" while Raymond was lying on the ice, and they didn't applaud when he was helped off. I'm upset that the hit isn't being reviewed and Boychuk won't be suspended, let alone penalized. I'm upset that Thornton can shoot a puck at Luongo and yap it him during warm-up with no repercussions. I'm upset that Marchand can punch Daniel Sedin in the head five times, but Daniel gets the misconduct call.

Boston doesn't deserve to win the Stanley Cup.

On the other hand, the league isn't doing anything to rein in the Bruins' shameful playing. So if that's the kind of hockey the NHL wants, maybe they deserve it after all.

Vector! Get rich!

According to StubHub, tickets to Game 7 have been the most purchased item on the site since last night and the average price per ticket was $3,082. The Game 1 ticket price average was $833. Game 2 was $976 and Game 5 last Friday was $1,219.

A quick look right now shows around 400 tickets available for Game 7 ranging from $1,600 to $13,589 for a pair of lower bowl ducats. The $13K pricetag won't scare off everyone as Stubhub tells us one soul bought a pair of center ice lower bowl seats for $6,500 each yesterday. Those are some deep pockets.

Vector wrote:

I'm going to game 7...I feel strangely numb.

The idea is very romantic, but it could end up hurting. A lot.

My roommate went to every home game in the 2009 Playoffs. He still can't watch Crosby raise The Cup on television. As soon as any brief glimpse of it happens he turns his head and lets out a painful groan.

Gravey wrote:

I'm more upset that the Boston fans were chanting "Go Bruins" while Raymond was lying on the ice, and they didn't applaud when he was helped off. I'm upset that the hit isn't being reviewed and Boychuk won't be suspended, let alone penalized. I'm upset that Thornton can shoot a puck at Luongo and yap it him during warm-up with no repercussions. I'm upset that Marchand can punch Daniel Sedin in the head five times, but Daniel gets the misconduct call.

Boston doesn't deserve to win the Stanley Cup.

On the other hand, the league isn't doing anything to rein in the Bruins' shameful playing. So if that's the kind of hockey the NHL wants, maybe they deserve it after all.

This reminds me of what some commentators have been saying about the Canucks - the Torres hit(s), Edler's rather brutal check last game on an icing race, the Rome hit, etc. I don't think the Bruins are really any dirtier than the Canucks, and neither is any dirtier than half the league. There are teams that could judge the Bruins, but not many, and Vancouver certainly isn't one of them.

I was quite upset that they didn't get him on the stretcher. He couldn't support ANY of his own weight as they carried him out. What sort of medical team allows that? It was one of the more stomache-turning things I've seen in hockey. Backs aren't supposed to bend like that... :\