MCSORLEY'S STICK

Is it too much to ask the refs to play up to the level of the Kings and Sharks?

Quisp — Wed, 22 May 2013 16:28:00 +0000

Probably. But in a series this close, every mistake is potentially the one that turns the series, and I would prefer it if the mistake is made by one of the teams, since they’re the ones who “win” or “lose.” I don’t think the refs have tilted the series one way or another. But they really do need to bring their “A” game, or else playoff hockey, which is close almost by definition (not to mention, parity in general) is pointless, since everything comes down to the coin toss of referee whimsy.

To be extra clear: I’m not blaming the refs for the Kings losing (or the Sharks losing, or the Hawks losing, or…). I’m blaming the refs for being the “highlight” of the night too many times. Can that be what anyone wants? Is that what anyone is tuning in to see?

Kings v Sharks Game 4 Pre-Game Bullets

Quisp — Tue, 21 May 2013 18:18:04 +0000

Kings are 5-3 in series in which they are up 2-1 going into game 4.
The last time the Kings were up 2-1, it was the Canucks series three years ago.
Sharks are 3-8 in series in which they are down 2-1 going into game 4.
Kings are 40-70 on the road in the playoffs.
Sharks are 44-38 at home in the playoffs.
Kings are 10-25 in game fours.
Kings beat the Blues in game 4 this year and last year. They beat Detroit in game 4 in 2001. Beyond those three wins, you have to go back to 1993 to find another game four win.
Sharks are 15-14 in game fours.
Aside from game one against San Jose (2-0, Kings), every Kings playoff game in 2013 has been decided by one goal.
Kings won the Stanley Cup last year.

Regehr and Lewis penalties were total bullsh– no, wait, they deserved them

Quisp — Sun, 19 May 2013 21:37:41 +0000

I would like to say that either or both of the Kings’ late penalties were undeserved, that the Kings were screwed by the Hockey Gods, etc., but, having just watched the plays in question several times each, the most homerish response I can justify would be something like, gee, usually they let those things go late in the game, don’t they?

Regehr did get his stick up in the hands of whomever, impeding whomever’s potential scoring chance. No, Regehr’s stick was not parallel to the ice, which is the off-quoted standard for nearly-guaranteed penalty. But it was a scoring chance foiled by stick-work. You can argue that the refs didn’t call the whole game that way. But that’s an argument only one side makes. The other side, meanwhile, says, “finally!”

Trevor Lewis, meanwhile, did actually run into the goalie. He didn’t look like he was trying to “run” the goalie, but he absolutely made significant contact with him. Was he pushed in by the D? I would say he was guided or steered in. It wasn’t an obvious shove, which would have been helpful to my Kings fan indignation. I feel bad for Lewis though. I can see that, with 12 seconds left, he really turned on the boosters in an attempt to score his second high-light reel last second game-winning goal in as many games. Instead, he put himself in a vulnerable position where a clever defenseman could subtly help him not quite be able to stop in time. That’s what defensemen do. That’s why defensemen — who otherwise spend most of their time determined to destroy anyone who comes anywhere near their goalie — suddenly are happy to dump opponent players on top of them. They’re trying to draw penalties or knock the net off. Smart.

Like I said, I feel bad for Lewis. But he was, first and formost, killing a penalty. He needed not to put himself in a position where a 5-on-3 against, in OT, was left up to the refs’ judgment. Sort of the way a penalty-killer might back off a potential scoring chance because the risk of allowing an out-numbered attack against is too great.

Doug Wilson preaches to choir

Quisp — Sat, 18 May 2013 19:04:30 +0000

I’ve gotten a few requests to look at Sharks GM Doug Wilson’s statement in support of Raffi Torres. In the meantime, Gann Matsuda took on the task, covering Wilson’s hypocrisy here. I still have not read the Wilson statement, but I’m doing it now. Ride along with me…

A Statement from GM Doug Wilson Regarding the Raffi Torres Suspension – San Jose Sharks – News

[...]

Upon review of the incident, it is abundantly clear that this was a clean hockey hit.

As I said when it happened, I thought the hit was on the edge, but, given Torres’s history, suspendible. At least, I think that’s what I said. I’ll have to check. I don’t know what counts for Wilson as clarity in abundance, but there seem to be several challenges to clarity. Namely, (1) was it interference, (2) was it charging, (3) was it a blind-side hit, (4) did the player target the head, (5) was the principal point of contact the head, (6) was the hit reckless, (7) was there an intent to injure, (8) does the player have a history of (a) recklessness, (b) dangerous hits, (c) intent to injure… It’s possible to address each of these questions and (apparently) also possible to decide that Torres passes the test, but it’s absurd to assert as Wilson does that it’s an obviously clean hit.

As noted by the NHL, Raffi’s initial point of contact was a shoulder-to-shoulder hit on an opponent who was playing the puck. He did not leave his feet or elevate, he kept his shoulder tucked and elbow down at his side, and he was gliding – not skating or charging.

Except that the refs thought otherwise since the call on the ice was charging. The rule book leaves plenty of wiggle room on the definition of charging, such that it can be applied to pretty much any hockey hit, regardless of whether he was “gliding” or “skating.” (p.s. pretty sure Torres was skating.)

As stated in the NHL’s Player Safety video, Rule 48.1 says, “A hit resulting in contact with an opponent’s head where the head is targeted and the principal point of contact is not permitted.” Thus, with the use of the word “and”, this rule clearly states that two elements must occur in order to violate the rule.

As Gann noted in his rebuttal, that’s a disingenuous parsing of that sentence. Gann already covered this one, so I’ll just add that the rule book is full of mangled phrases like that. I can think of only two practical interpretations of “where the head is targeted.”

“where the officials decide that the checking player appeared to target the head of the opponent.”
“where the officials ask the checking player if he meant to hit him in the head and he says, ‘yes.’”

Raffi absolutely did not target his opponent’s head on the play.

It appears Wilson favors my second interpretation.

The call on the ice specifically acknowledged that the head was not targeted

I didn’t know refs were so specific. I thought they just said “charging.” Not, “charging, though we acknowledge the head was not targeted.”

and nowhere in the NHL’s ruling does it insinuate or suggest that the opponent’s head was targeted.

Oh, I don’t know. I think you could argue the NHL insinuates it.

Furthermore,

Oh, good. There’s more.

the rule goes on to say: “However, in determining whether such a hit should have been permitted, the circumstances of the hit, including whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position immediately prior to or simultaneously with the hit or the head contact on an otherwise legal body check was avoidable, can be considered.”

As evidenced in the video, just prior to Torres making contact with the opposing player, that player altered his posture to play a bouncing puck with his hand, placing himself in a vulnerable position.

That caveat refers to cases in which a player intentionally puts himself into a vulnerable position so that the resulting check (which would otherwise have been legal) requires a penalty. That’s what is meant by “put himself into a vulnerable position immediately prior.” It does not mean, “hey if you bend over it’s your own tough luck.”

Comparing the facts of this incident against the actual wording of Rule 48.1, it appears that the NHL has not only made an inappropriate application of this rule but is trying to make an example out of a player who is being judged on past events, one who has changed his game dramatically this season and taken only six minor penalties in 39 games.

He’s a repeat offender. The league is allowed — actually, required — to take that into account. I love that you offer, as supportive evidence, how not horrible and dangerous he’s been since January, compared to the rest of his career.

I take it as axiomatic that a repeat offender has not repeated his offense since his last offense. That’s always going to be true, even after this one, and the next one.

SWEET FANCY MOSES!

Quisp — Fri, 17 May 2013 05:18:47 +0000

Kings win their sixth game in a row. Is that their longest streak of the season? Yes.
It’s the longest Kings’ winning streak since they won 8 in a row last playoffs.
Tyler Toffoli. TT. T2. Drew the penalty. Then made the Lewis goal happen.
Trevor Lewis is in an awful lot of playoff highlights.
Pavelski probably wishes he scored on that rebound.
Kings go up 2-0 in a playoff series at home for only the second time in franchise history, and the first time since 1968. Heads up to NHL.com: go ahead and steal this for your blog tomorrow.
The Kings lost that 1968 series, to the North Stars. But since then, they’re 5-0 in series in which they’re leading 2-0 after two games.
The last four of those were last year.
The Sharks are 0-8 in series in which they are down 0-2 after two games.
I’m so nervous I’m still shaking an hour later.

Kingdom to Joe Thornton: “**** you.”

Quisp — Thu, 16 May 2013 04:11:55 +0000

Joe Thornton to Jarret Stoll: ‘Just keep your head up’ | ProHockeyTalk

San Jose Sharks captain Joe Thornton seems to think that Stoll was the one being careless. Thornton [said] he’s surprised the NHL wants to discuss the check with Torres. “We were kind of shocked today to hear he has to fly to New York for the hearing,” Thornton said. “We didn’t see anything wrong on the play.” The Sharks captain argues that the league is putting hitters in a tough spot. “It almost seems like the player getting hit has no responsibility at all right now,” Thornton said. “In that case, I think Jarret probably wasn’t expecting to get hit, and it just looked like a clean hit. It seems right now that the responsibility is on the hitter, and not the receiver right now.”

Apparently he’s not very happy with that standard, then.

“No,” Thornton said. “The way I was brought up was to keep your head up. Just keep your head up. When I was six years old, I was taught that.”

A day late – round one results

Quisp — Wed, 15 May 2013 14:08:53 +0000

Raffi Torres hit on Jarret Stoll is (literally) borderline

Quisp — Wed, 15 May 2013 13:55:13 +0000

I have yet to see an illuminating video of the hit. There’s the play as shown in real time, where it appears the puck is in the vicinity of Stoll, but I couldn’t tell you if he had possession of the puck or not. There’s the replay as shown on NBC, which doesn’t show the puck at all, but to my eye indicates that the check was shoulder on shoulder and that if anything Stoll’s and Torres’s heads might have knocked after the initial contact. My guess is that, if Stoll is concussed, it’s from whiplash as a result of the initial shoulder contact. The best rationale for suspension, if you ask me, is the blind-side hit rule, since Stoll was in a compromising position and had no idea the hit was coming. However, that rule requires that the principal point of contact be the head, and I just can’t tell if it was.

If Torres gets Shanabanned, I think it’s his reputation working against him. Unless the league has another angle that clearly shows Stoll’s head as the principal.

Wait, Hockey Buzz has an editorial policy?

Quisp — Mon, 13 May 2013 22:49:49 +0000

Today, in Kings blogging news, Matt Barry, Kings blogger for Hockey Buzz, has left that esteemed organization and is now blogging from his own site. There are only two reasons I know what Hockey Buzz is. One is that Matt Barry is a Kings blogger and I enjoy his writing. The other is that Hockey Buzz is famous for peddling trade rumors that are by reputation the gold standard for wild inaccuracy. Click on the link below to read Barry’s repost of the post which he says Hockey Buzz deleted and which in turn caused Barry to leave.

In the comments section of that post, someone posted a response (by someone at Hockey Buzz) to Barry’s indignation. This is that comment, with my comments on that comment.

Big Mouth Barry | Bruce Boudreau = FAIL

I will explain exactly why the blog in question got deleted.

We have an editorial policy that was put in place a year ago. Most of the bloggers on this site have zero problems following the rules, which mostly come down to common sense and common courtesy.

Their editorial policy doesn’t appear to give a shit if what its writers write is actually true. Something along the lines of “Say only true things” might be good. Truth, after all, is a common courtesy directed at the reader.

There are only a few who have ever had blogs deleted and just two who are serial offenders of the editorial policy (and, if fact made such a policy necessary in the first place).

You wouldn’t even have an editorial policy if it weren’t for Matt Barry and some unnamed guy pissing you off? That’s pathetic. Also, you should probably name the thing after him.

Specific to the HockeyBuzz editorial policy, there are three reasons why the blog got deleted:

1) No-trolling rule: Writing an Anaheim burial blog — within minutes of the team being eliminated– is a clear-cut violation of a rule we have about no taunting/trolling blogs. The end of the blog in question made obvious what the writer’s intent was: Taunting a just-eliminated team about raising a regular-season banner next season is what a message board troll does, not what HB pays bloggers to do.

You can’t troll your own blog.

2) Insufficient content: The body of the blog had zero content about the LA Kings

The LA Kings are rivals of the Anaheim Ducks. That makes whatever happens to the Ducks relevant to Kings fans and of course to Kings bloggers. To say nothing of the fact that the outcome of that particular game was of huge importance to Kings fans, since it determined whether or not the Kings were going to play their biggest rivals in a playoff series for the first time.

and contained zero information that couldn’t be found in 10 seconds on hockeydb.com by searching the coaching portion of Boudreau and then doing a cut-and-paste.

“Doing a cut-and-paste” sounds suspiciously like stealing. You can’t go to someone else’s site and cut-and-paste their content into your site. But I guess, in the war on rudeness, anything goes.

If the main part of the blog had been, say, an analysis of where Boudreau specifically got outcoached in this series and in past playoffs (line matchups, mid-game adjustments, etc) then it would have had some sort of substance to it.

It also would have been a different post with a different point. But I understand: all Hockey Buzz posts that “have no substance” shall be deleted as a matter of policy. Check.

3) Repeat offenses: Had the blogger not just written a blatant troll-the-Habs blog a few days earlier right after they got eliminated — which was let slide — this one might have been left up with a reminder of the editorial policy.

I’m not familiar with the phrase “might have been left up with a.”

It was pretty mild trolling, but trolling nonetheless. Quite frankly, the mistake on this side was to be lenient on the previous blog, not to delete the new one.

I guess there is no rule against illiteracy in the Hockey Buzz editorial policy. It also sounds like their editorial policy caused them to delete the “mild” post while leaving up the post that actually offended them (it appears from Matt’s re-post that the reason for this is that the previous post, the one actually in violation of the Hockey Buzz Morals Clause, is the one with lots and lots of hits; wouldn’t want to delete THAT).

I guess the editorial policy has a “make-up call” provision.

It’s remarkable to me that Hockey Buzz has any rules at all requiring its content to be “substantial,” that they have any special interest in detailed analysis, or editorial balance, or common sense, or common courtesy. I thought their entire reason for existence was to court controversy by making shit up and/or infuriating people with reaction-inciting sports-fan diatribe, thus driving massive blog-traffic.

I guess the point of having a blog policy that pays lip-service to propriety (etc.) is that they — the Hockey Buzz Arbiters of Blog Etiquette — can mete out justice at their own selective whim. Because they couldn’t possibly apply those standards across the board without deleting their entire archive and firing everyone.

Kings open playoff round at home for 1st time in 21 years

Quisp — Mon, 13 May 2013 19:19:06 +0000

Not since the 1992 playoffs, round one against Edmonton. Kings are 5-4 all-time in game ones at home.

Oh, and obviously, the Kings have never played a game one at Staples.

Kings open 2013 Conference Semifinals on Tuesday at STAPLES Center – Los Angeles Kings | News

The National Hockey League announced today Game 1 dates of the 2013 Stanley Cup Playoffs Conference Semifinal round for the three matchups that have been determined. Round 2 starts Tuesday, May 14, with a doubleheader. Game 1 in the Eastern Conference Semifinal series between the Pittsburgh Penguins and Ottawa Senators will be played at 7:30 p.m. ET at CONSOL Energy Center in Pittsburgh and the Western Conference Semifinal between the Los Angeles Kings and San Jose Sharks will start at 10 p.m. ET/7 p.m. PT at STAPLES Center in Los Angeles.