| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Alex |
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 04:25:47
Are you for, or against Avery's stick-waving in front of Brodeur? |
| 40 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| LuonGod |
Posted - 10/11/2008 : 09:49:42
Dont get me wrong, I think Avery is a huge goofball that is disrespectful and thinks of only himself, but with that said, I think the stick waiving incident was appropriate in a sense. I think this because of the complexity of the game. A PRO goalie, or anyone on an NHL ice surface should be able to deal with instigation. I dont agree at all with his words spoken off ice. As long as its within the rules and not harmful physically I think a player should have every right to get under the skin of an opponent, even verbally. |
| MSC |
Posted - 10/06/2008 : 07:20:06
I know this is an old and dead topic, but it's the first I've seen of it. Here's what I'd like to know....do you really think that the rangers coach put Avery out there on a 5-3 powerplay in a playoff game without any clue that he was going to go out there and do that? I highly doubt it. If I was a betting man this wasn't Averys idea at all. I don't know the numbers but I'd be curious to see how much playing time he actually got on PP's. Also, if Avery did this out of his own perogative and the coach had no clue he was going to do it don't you think he would have put a quick end to it?
Everyone's pretty quick to lynch Avery when he might not be the only fox in the henhouse...
|
| Guest9060 |
Posted - 10/05/2008 : 06:52:50
quote:
Originally posted by Guest5769
i think everyone that thinks that was a good move by avery is stupid! HOW IS THAT A GOOD MOVE? it is like steriods and baseball! it kills the sport of hockey and makes hockey look horrible!!!!!! avery is a jerK!!!   
 |
| 99pickles |
Posted - 04/21/2008 : 01:58:43
In all fairness, I didn't see Avery shake Brodeur's hand either. He must have been feeling some shame or embarrassment over something. |
| willus3 |
Posted - 04/20/2008 : 22:26:32
Hockey is played with emotion. I don't fault Brodeur in the least. If it were me I probably would have shook his hand and simultaneously cracked Avery in the beak with my free hand.
Shaking hands with him is akin to saying what he did was ok. What he did was not ok. People who don't understand this have no comprehension of what sportsmanship is. These are the same types of people who have helped the game degrade to it's current state. Zero respect for anyone or anything. It's sad.
But what are ya gonna do eh?
|
| andyhack |
Posted - 04/20/2008 : 17:20:50
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xte-Vtxg-m8
Watch the famous Hunter-Turgeon thing above. Now if Turgeon wouldn't have been as badly injured as he ended up being, and would have been there for the handshake ceremony at the end of the series, would you have expected him to shake Dale Hunter's hand after a cheapshot like that?
Beans - in my opinion you are dead wrong on this one. Hockey is a tough game and the line is hard to see sometimes, yes, but when it is crossed the handshake thing becomes unnecessary. It's not a question of "he did something bad, so I am going to do something bad too". It's simply that any guy who does something beyond the "line" actually isn't even worthy of participating in the very classy custom of the shaking hands after a tough battle. So if a victim of a player's "line crossing" decides not to shake that player's hand, that is absolutely not a reflection on the player's class in my book.
Edit - Gerry Cheevers and Billy Smith did not believe in shaking hands at the end of a series (and didn't) - now I don't agree with that, BUT, if the idea is that a guy's hand should be shaken NO MATTER WHAT, then I start thinking that maybe Smith and Cheevers were onto something |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/20/2008 : 15:28:24
I was not one of the people saying that it's ok to do anything to win the game. In fact, I completely disagree. Do I think Avery crossed the line?? Yeah, I guess. He didn't really break any rules but I can appreciate the view of his actions not being part of the game. However, does that mean that gives Brodeur to be a meatball now?? Seriously, it's like Junior High. Avery crossed the line first, so now I can cross the line???
Crap. Both actions, one could say, were lacking class. Can anyone else out there think of a single time where a player shook hands were the entire opposing team except one player???
Regardless of the reasons as to why, you shake hands at the end of the series if you have class. What Brodeur did is childish, classless, and the guy lost respect that day. |
| OILINONTARIO |
Posted - 04/19/2008 : 18:19:30
Here's my take on the events that happened during this series. Avery's a d***. Brodeur isn't much better, but his defensemen don't hsve any respect for his legacy, or his importance for the team. The "Fatso" quote was out of line, but absolutely priceless. Regardless, the Rangers will be out in the 2nd round.
The Oil WILL make the playoffs in 2009. |
| andyhack |
Posted - 04/19/2008 : 14:26:23
Yeah, I know Oil. The analogy is far off. But so too is the equation of the sport of hockey to "war". My point. You can't have it both ways. If hockey equals war, which I think is a ridiculous analogy, but if it does, and there is no line as to "sportsmanlike conduct", then having the players shake hands at centre ice at the end of a series is a silly hypocritical practice with no meaning (maybe I shouldn't have used the analogy as the rest of my post may have been adequate for the point I was trying to make)
Don't get me wrong. I love that they shake hands. But when a guy crosses that "line", I'll forgive a player for not shaking that guy's hand. |
| OILINONTARIO |
Posted - 04/19/2008 : 13:47:04
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
Well, I've come this far so I'll go one further. And I know it is a far far off analogy (and that it can be distinguished in many ways) and I really do not mean to offend anyone, but I'll throw out the next comment just to emphasize the point about the hypocrisy of the "shaking hands" thing. For those of you who think Avery's actions were okay on the basis that you "do anything" to win a hockey game", and then go on to think that Marty should have shaken his hand and just said "Nice series, good luck", it almost seems to me like you would be for a concentration camp survivor shaking hands with his captor who taunted him for years at the end of a war, and saying "Nice war, good luck"
WOW!!! Nice analogy, good luck. Concentration camp survivor? WOW!!!
The Oil WILL make the playoffs in 2009. |
| andyhack |
Posted - 04/19/2008 : 09:12:14
If I were Marty I might have shaken Avery's hand, and while shaking it, told him something like, "Your ways are just wrong buddy", but I certainly don't think Marty should be thought of less for not shaking his hand. The two things (Avery crossing the line and the shaking of hands) are related in my mind. If Avery crossed the line, then I think shaking his hand is somewhat hypocritical (that's why I would only do it with some sort of comment to Avery).
It's not a question of being a man Beans, as if you get into that way of thinking you can look at it the other way and ask yourself, "What sort of p**** lets a guy trash talk him about VERY personal stuff involving him and his ex, and also puts up with the other silly antics, and then meekly shakes hands with that other guy?".
The ex-wife stuff may very well have severely stung some nerves by the way. Who knows? The guy is human.
I'll end with what is likely to be a controversial comment, but what the hell, it will make for some interesting comments to come. It is this. IF some of you really believe there is NO line to what you should do to win a hockey game, why are these guys even shaking hands at the end of a series? If there is no line, then it really IS like war. Again, shaking hands is hypocritical.
Well, I've come this far so I'll go one further. And I know it is a far far off analogy (and that it can be distinguished in many ways) and I really do not mean to offend anyone, but I'll throw out the next comment just to emphasize the point about the hypocrisy of the "shaking hands" thing. For those of you who think Avery's actions were okay on the basis that you "do anything" to win a hockey game", and then go on to think that Marty should have shaken his hand and just said "Nice series, good luck", it almost seems to me like you would be for a concentration camp survivor shaking hands with his captor who taunted him for years at the end of a war, and saying "Nice war, good luck" |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/19/2008 : 07:43:43
I just wanted to throw out to all those people who said that Avery's antics were "classless." Let me tell you what I think classless is.
Firstly, Avery did his thing in the middle of the game. I can even agree the he may have crossed that invicible line. However:
How classless is it for someone to refuse to shake hands at the end of the series?? I'm not talking about the guy who skates off the ice and shakes hands with no one because they are so emotially drained after the loss. I am specifically talking about "Mr. Classy" Martin Brodeur, who shook the hand of every other Ranger player other than Avery. How classy is that??
I even remember the brutal Oiler/Flames series of the 80's when the I mean pure hatred for each other. What did they do at the end of the series??
They lined up and shook hands like real men.
I lost a ton of respect for Marty Brodeur last night! |
| andyhack |
Posted - 04/18/2008 : 18:29:00
I guess I'm a moron then IHC. But if there is no line at all in hockey, then I would suggest to Avery that next time he wave the stick closer to Brodeur's body, maybe his neck, or maybe his family jewels. Yeah, that's it - Sean should make a swinging motion as if he were at bat in baseball, aiming for Marty's chin chin (you can figure out that Japanese). After all, there is no line. You would think that would be more effective than this last attempt. Would be more creative too. Never seen it before as far as I know.
Of course, I agree with you that hockey is far from golf. But that doesn't necessarily mean absolutely everything goes. I actually have no problem with someone who says "this Avery antic doesn't cross my line - it's a tough game...". Although I disagree, I can understand how someone might conclude that given that, you're right IHC, it IS a tough nasty game, one where the meaning of "unsportsmanlike conduct" is obviously different from golf or tennis. BUT, when people say, "you do ANYTHING to win" and don't realize that this really is just a saying and that of course there IS a line, well that is somewhat "moronic", to this moron anyway. |
| I HATE CROSBY |
Posted - 04/18/2008 : 17:42:47
I Think that was the funniest, smartest idea I've ever seen!
Anyone who says anything about that being a classless play, and ruins the integrety of the game is a moron..It's hockey guys! These guys go into a dressing room after the game and make d*** jokes in the shower, then hit up a team party and pick up puck sluts (or at least that's what my Junior hockey days were about)....It's the NHL playoffs, not the masters everyone; these guys will try anything to win, and that's what hockey's about (ie:no NHL player will call a penalty on himself..like what happened 2ce in the masters...Hockey isn't really about honor!)
It was creative, smart, and hilarious...That was the dumbest idea making a rule against it..Living in Vancouver, I can say it's equivalent to making a smoking ban for bar patios.
Sugar Ray over Hasek any day! |
| Guest4573 |
Posted - 04/17/2008 : 18:56:33
quote:
Originally posted by Guest2908
Never argue with a drunk, ... Draw your own conclusion you will anyway! Rather you already have
quote:
Originally posted by Guest6435
one final note why is it 80 voted vs avery but 80 percent post are for it
Excuse me idiot', my comment was it seemed one sided 80 percent thought avery was wrong yet majority of posts and call in shows apeared to think he was right and where did drunk part come from or was it in reference to yourself.
|
| Alex |
Posted - 04/17/2008 : 15:58:21
Guest5022, let me start by saying this: I really like what you have to say, you add a lot of value to the forums. Might you consider making a profile or at least participating in other topics? It would greatly help the site and make it more fun for me and presumably many others 
Now, on to the topic at hand. I absolutely hate the role of instigator in the NHL. I think they are disgusting and should not be taking the spot of a talented guy who can't crack a lineup because he has more respect. That being said, my feelings don't count. It is smart hockey to have one of those guys in your lineup. Someone made a good point too, I forget who: we all think this is a new phenomenon. Think about how much abuse guys like The Rocket and others took! It was crazy compared to this. In the Boston / Habs series, Lafleur came out with a bandaged head from all the intentional high sticks he had recieved!
So, while we may have our own opinions on the matter, it is undeniably an integral part of the game's history.
Moving along, let us look at Sean Avery. I think Elisha Cuthbert must have taken mom's advice wrong and looked for the wrong type of ''big d***'' Now, and I have to admit it, I do appreciate what he does, because I do have to admit, he is damn good at it! He has been racist, made references to marital issues, allegedly made fun of a disease, etc., but hey, it's the nature of the beast. Don't shoot the messenger, right? At least he isn't a head-hunter. At least he didn't Bertuzzi anyone. At least he didn't give anyone a high stick to the head (McSorley on Brashear). At least he did not stomp on a guy (Simon on Kessler.) You have to admit, for an instigator, he is good. He doesn't pound guys, he scores goals. And yes, he manages to get in their head, but that is part of the job.
And now, we have the latest installment for him to put on his ''Wall of Shame'' if you will. Personally, it is stupid to him, because I think he could be more effective on a 5-on-3 PP. However, I don't get paid to do what he does. Like I illustrated above, that may have led to the eventual goal.
In the big picture, I really must ask: what did he do? He did not touch Brodeur at all. He did not insult him either. He made a lot of people laugh and he ended up getting his team a goal, some would say. Within the realm of instigating tactics, this is no big in my mind.
I liked it within the given circumstance and am for it. At the very least, the NHL should not reserve the right to make on-the-fly rule changes.
"You're playing worse every day and right now you're playing like the middle of next week."
-Herb Brooks |
| Guest9087 |
Posted - 04/17/2008 : 15:28:24
quote:
Originally posted by Guest5769
i think everyone that thinks that was a good move by avery is stupid! HOW IS THAT A GOOD MOVE? it is like steriods and baseball! it kills the sport of hockey and makes hockey look horrible!!!!!! avery is a jerK!!!
you said it |
| Guest5022 |
Posted - 04/17/2008 : 14:30:01
Alex thank you for a truthful reply and it is a good point about a rookie goalie even if it is price
|
| Guest5022 |
Posted - 04/17/2008 : 14:19:21
Another question I have for all of you who find Avery's antics funny and innovative is where do you draw the line with these antics and if you are so apposed to fighting Alex (this is what I think yopu are getting with your staples comment if not I apologize) why allow the very types of taunting incidents that would incourage it. I am well aware that there was no fight after this play (there should have been) but it does not take much imagination to see this incident or another similar to it ending in brawl. Don't hand me that lighten up crap either I snickered when I saw that replay but it wasn't because I thought oh that Avery he's so witty and inovative it was because I was saying what an a******. I beleive sportsmanship is not just playing fair but playing with a certain level of respect for yourself, your teamates, the other team, the fans and the game itself. Now how many of those things did Avery disrespect thats your call I think everyone is clear on my opinion. On a personnel level alot of people would say you would love him if he where on your team no I wouldn't I'm a leafs fan and I would love to get rid of Tucker. I like hard nosed hockey players who play hard and grind it out but not clowns. We talk about Avery now like he's so great now boy how quickly we forget about his Frenchman comment or the racial slur he threw at George Laraque, boy how innovative, Or how about calling Shane Doan the most overrated hockey player in the NHL and then backing down each time he trys to fight you, that one really speaks for itself. Comparing Averys theatrics to Crosby and Pittsburgh is a stretch aswell sure as hell he distracted Brodeur but you could of started Breakdancing (nothing in the rules about that and nothing unsportmanlike about it) in front of Brodeur with the same effect. C'mon boys you want Hockey or Slapshot. |
| Alex |
Posted - 04/17/2008 : 13:45:40
quote:
Originally posted by Guest5022
Alex I will pose this question again and please respond truthfully, Would it have been so inovative and funny if it was Tucker doing it to Price?
No it would not, you are write in that sense. However, it would have been funny had it been, say, Domi on Theodore.
I guess it has to do with something slightly intangible embedded eep within the psyche of a person. I can say this, it does not have to do with the team.
Had Avery done it on any goalie in the league I would have laughed. Had, say, Crosby, one of if not the most classy guys in the league done it, I think Canada would have hung its collective head in shame.
As well, I enjoy watching the Avery - Brodeur battle, because it is a guy trying to make a name for himself the dirty way going up against a future HOFer. On the other hand, if Tucker did it to a rookie goalie, I would have a problem with it.
If Aaron Downey had done it to Cam Ward in 06 I would have been pissed. I think, and this is all obviously a matter of opinion, personally speaking the circumstances were just right so that it was borderline funny. Had one of the components not been there, it would be viewed as disgraceful in my eyes, you are right.
"You're playing worse every day and right now you're playing like the middle of next week."
-Herb Brooks |
| Guest5022 |
Posted - 04/17/2008 : 13:34:07
Alex I will pose this question again and please respond truthfully, Would it have been so inovative and funny if it was Tucker doing it to Price? |
| Guest9288 |
Posted - 04/17/2008 : 08:52:42
quote:
Originally posted by Alex
Are you for, or against Avery's stick-waving in front of Brodeur?
Besides being foolish and without class, what Avery did was unsafe. The NHL implements rules like mandatory helmets in order to protect players. If Avery (or anybody else) were to get hit in the back of the neck with a shot because they were too busy trying to distract the goalie, they could become a quadriplegic, or worse die.
The league needs to prevent this in order to protect the players from serious injury, and the players should not object. |
| manninm |
Posted - 04/17/2008 : 07:52:58
It's ironic that this happened when it did. Not more than a couple weeks ago I was playing pickup and a buddy of mine waived his glove in front of my face to screen me. Afterwards we were trying to figure out if it was in the rulebook - apparently not!
I really dislike Avery. I think he's the worst kind of agitator, like Chris Neil. But he doesn't deserve any flack on this one. I actually agree with what the NHL did in this situation (that's twice in one year, a new record!!!). The decision making was swift and proactive. I generally have a problem with the NHL making up rules (FN1 - See "How the Sabres Got Screwed in 1999," by Lindy Ruff). But this one was in good taste. A major oversight by the rules committee not to have something, ANYTHING, in the rules about it, tho.
Because the demands on a goalie are mostly mental, it means that for a goalie, the biggest enemy is himself." ~Ken Dryden |
| OILINONTARIO |
Posted - 04/17/2008 : 07:03:50
Quick question. If Avery was trying to draw a penalty, what would be the result if he succeeded? The Rangers were already on a 5 on 3.
Anybody who was entertained by Avery's actions might think again after seeing it happen on every powerplay. It did make for a good highlight, though.
The Oil WILL make the playoffs in 2009. |
| andyhack |
Posted - 04/17/2008 : 06:49:23
This post is probably better suited for the general "instigator" thread, but I'll put it here as this seems to be the current Avery topic.
I want to comment on the idea that Beans raised in that "instigator" thread that the name of the game is winning and that a G.M. shouldn't care about how his players contribute to that goal as long as they contribute. Although this "do anything you can to win" way of thinking certainly has some merit, sounds right, and is hard to argue against as a general principle, I think that sometimes we crazy sports fans forget the obvious, which is that, OF COURSE, there IS a line to that way of thinking. The only sport that I know of where there is not a line is Rollerball (of the Jimmy Caan/Jonathon D variety, if you know what I mean). Noone REALLY thinks players should do "anything" to win , otherwise we would be encouraging our players to go out there and do something really unsportsmanlike such as, well, for one example from the top of my head, trash talk a player about some illness he has or had. Do you see my point? If there is no line to the "do anything you can to win" type of thinking, then absolutely anything goes and the meaning and significance of the words "unsportmanlike conduct" becomes void.
Where is the line? Well, of course, that is personal. For me, it is somewhere between the Kenny the Rat/Tikanen antics of yesteryear and some of Avery's current antics. This is an important point too. Let's not forget the "honor amongst thieves" concept. There IS a difference between Kenny the Rat/Tikanen irritating stuff and the Avery irritating stuff. My guess is that Kenny the Rat, Tikanen, Claude Lemieux, Dale Hunter and other far from choir boy instigators from the past would not go as far as waving their stick in front of a goalies face in a threatening manner. My guess (and I admit I could be wrong) is that the idea would violate EVEN their principles.
Avery does his job well, yes, and who knows, the Rangers might win a Cup with his contribution being a key factor. But I'm going to throw this sort of blasphemous thought out there. Winning ain't everything boys! There is such a thing as winning without honor. And Beans, if a GM passes on a player like Avery on that basis, it doesn't mean necessarily that he is foregoing the general principle that you "do what you need to do to win". He can still go out there and get an instigator - one that fits within the GMs range of acceptable behavior.
|
| Guest2908 |
Posted - 04/17/2008 : 03:48:41
Never argue with a drunk, ... Draw your own conclusion you will anyway! Rather you already have
quote:
Originally posted by Guest6435
one final note why is it 80 voted vs avery but 80 percent post are for it
|
| Guest2047 |
Posted - 04/16/2008 : 15:43:17
Avery is, and shall always be, a moron. |
| Guest6435 |
Posted - 04/16/2008 : 14:53:10
one final note why is it 80 voted vs avery but 80 percent post are for it
|
| Guest6435 |
Posted - 04/16/2008 : 14:44:20
ok it is not a new ruleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee it is an INTERPRETATION of a current rule. ENGLISH READ IT. and by your logic you can do whatever you choose on the ice if its not in the rules that is why they added unsportmanlike to cover idfiots like avery you cant write a rule for everything. The point in screening a goalie is to score avery was hurting his team they had a five on three yeah his action turned talk iabout him as opposed to the loss but maybe they wouldnt lost if he tried to score instead of acting like a fool. The point is to win how did averys action assist that make best goalie in the nhl play better cause now he has a grudge when he shuts them out back tio back and they lose the sreies.His teamates are embarrassed the ones with class anyhow . |
| Alex |
Posted - 04/16/2008 : 14:20:54
I've sat out of this one long enough and it is about time I offered my two cents worth.
There really are a lot of different things to look at when we judge what Avery did. First off, was it a help to his team? After all, one would assume that the motive behind his antics were to help his team, not to draw attention to himself, but I guess you never know...
Well, the fact is, they scored. Is it a result of what Avery did? That's debatable. In all fairness, it was a 5-on-3 in which the scrappy Sean Avery had his back to the play the entire time. It is possible that he could have scored a goal had he been facing the play, or at least had the defenders spread out a little more, if they were worried that a puck may be passed to him.
And yet, on the other hand, there is the goal. If you look at the play, what happened was the NYRs were setting up the powerplay formation and a Ranger had the puck in the corner. Avery goes to the net, and interestingly, not a single Devil picks him up. Neither would I. Now, we all know that when we are watching the game as opposed to playing it, it seems so obvious what plays should be made because we can see the whole game. However, even though I was watching (and even rewatched) I have to admit, I was convinced Avery was going to pull the same shananigan again. Instead, he gets a beauty of a feed and burries it home.
However, that is the type of play that will only work once.
Now, the bigger issue is the legal aspect. Simply, is it allowed in the game of hockey? Yes, it is. In fact, I rather enjoyed it I thought it was creative, entertaining, and effective. It's funny to think that while Crosby is leading the guys in Steel Town to a revolution of new plays, Avery is busy mastermining new pesty techniques!
Strictly speaking, it is legal. That the NHL can change the rule on it is mind-bogling. Where does Gary Bettman come off changing a rule in the middle of the playoffs? That is a very big discrepancy and I don't think it is right in the least bit.
Lastly, there are those, including one passionate guest on Mike Landsberg's OTR, who are adamant that it is a disgrace to the game. Personally, there are much bigger problems. If we are worried of giving the game a bad name, we should realize that hockey ''staples'' if you will such as fighting and hitting and trash talking take a front seat to a guy dancing in front of a goalie.
To andyhack, I apologize for not extending this post but I am done for now. For those who didn't bother to read it and want the Cole's Notes, here they are: Alex gives his approval to the Sean Avery antics.
"You're playing worse every day and right now you're playing like the middle of next week."
-Herb Brooks |
| Guest8815 |
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 20:35:11
Oh man I've pulled that one before and guys, I wouldn't recommend it, I got a nice scar from a nice friendly blocker under the eye. To the issue, yes I think it should be changed but the NHL should not be able to institute a rule in the middle of the playoffs, should have to wait for the off season. |
| andyhack |
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 20:31:57
Although I too thought it was kind of funny, I'm against what he did and I definitely don't think it should be in the game. And I would have had no problem if a really quick thinking ref would have blown the whistle right there, and called it for unsportsmanlike conduct. It would have been a discretionary call, but discretion is sometimes underrated. It's not the facing the goalie part. But you can't be waving your stick in front of a goalie's face like that.
|
| Guest4631 |
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 19:47:28
Sorry last line of d the last comment was for Beans and since I don't know your team you fill in the blanks |
| Guest4631 |
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 19:43:24
Hey last line of D how would you of felt if you where Brodeur or hey what if it was Tucker on Price would it have been so funny then |
| Guest4631 |
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 19:40:32
I guess the question you have to ask is, is this a sport or wrestling. As far as I'm concerned someone on the devils should have dropped him right there. Broedeur is the star of that club and the leader. Avery should have never of been able to do that to him. I blame alot of that on this rule changes I like the crack down on obstruction in the neutral zone although they have gotten carried away with that see Habs Bruins game 2 overtime trip leading to game winner. What the hell was that. What a way to lose a playoff game in overtime after coming back from 3 down. Anyway back to my original point I feel players get away with way to much in front of the net now that a defence man can't move them out of the way. Back in the good old days Avery would have been to Busy battling a defence man to get the screen to even think about putting on a show. I also would like to mention that no rule change was nessecary that should have been an unsportsmanlike, I mean just seems to me that Avery's actions defined the word. The whole time I was watching that Avery I was hoping he would take a point shot in the back, now that would have been entertaining I know that sounds a little harsh but if you are on the ice pay attention to the game. For those of you who thought Averys actions were good or however you want to put it I suggest you watch the NBA or wrestling if shameless showboating is your thing or if your one of these people who think goalie pads should be shrunk and skill players need more room to show their skill the NBA is full of all the things your looking for. |
| Axey |
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 17:53:51
As I've stated in the other forum I am against it, until they take away the instagator and he is allowed to get his face pounded off |
| lastlineofd |
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 17:18:15
Yea there is a double standard, a large one. BUT I don't see anyother player resorting to that. The only one that I've ever seen come close is Ryan Smythe waiving the stick. I like him so I pretty much ignored it.
Changing rules on the fly is garbage but the NHL is STILL desperately trying to legitimize and sell itself to new US markets. I can't wait for the day that the NHL decides to cater itself to the true hockey fans and keep the game as it is. No more gimmicks.
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 17:13:07
Here is the thing that I have an issue with. Like Avery or hate him, that is not the point. The sick thing is that the NHL changes a rule part way through the playoffs. What?? That's crap.
The other thing that is crap, if for some reason a "superstar" player did the say thing, there is not way in hell that the NHL changes the rule.
Bottom line, the NHL has a double standard in it's treatment and reaction based on the player.
Total Bunk.
To the issue at hand, I laughed out loud when I watched Avery. It was hilarious. Those of you who are saying it's classless and all that other stuff. I have just two word for you................
Lighten Up!!!! |
| spade632 |
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 17:07:38
Avery's shenanigans were compeltely without class and have no place in the game. While there's nothing wrong with camping out in front of the goalie to block his sightlines what AVery was doing was just plain insipid.
(Below is a repost of the thread I started....)
In my mind there are two goals to this action.
1) Distract Brodeur leading to potential scoring chances / goals.
2) Instigate a Devils player into putting Avery in his place thus earning the Rangers a power play opportunity.
While there's nothing wrong with camping out in front of a goalie to block his vision I think Avery's shenanigans crossed the line. I think that an easy way to prevent the same sort of thing from becoming a regular occurence that the next time Avery (or anyone else) pulls that stick-waving, back-to-the-play schtick that they should be assessed a 10 minute misconduct. This would send a clear message that those type of antics aren't permitted. At the same time, it would not unduly hinder the penalized team because there would be no power-play opportunity.
Avery's actions clearly fall under Rule 75.4 (iii):
75.4 Misconduct penalties shall be assessed under this rule for the following infractions:
(iii) Any player or goalkeeper who, after warning by the Referee, persists in any course of conduct (including threatening or abusive language or gestures or similar actions) designed to incite an opponent into incurring a penalty.
(end repost)
As it turns out the NHL made an on-the-fly rule change (cited above) to deal with the issue. |
| Patchy |
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 16:49:55
I felt it was a bit 'extra' to make another rule just for this incident..I believe it should have been a penalty, there's no need for that type of idiotic behavior on the ice, just make it a 2 minute minor (unsportsmanlike conduct) and he probably won't do it again..no big deal.
~~Go Leafs Go~~ |
|
|
