A Kick Save and a Beauty » My Take

How to Ruin the Game 101

admin — Fri, 24 Dec 2010 02:11:52 +0000

“To play hockey you shouldn’t have to go through what I went through. I was just looking to have friendship and play the game I love.”

Yesterday the story of Kayla Watkins was brought to my attention via both Puck Daddy, Buzzing the Net and the much adored Sarah Spain.

Originally covered in the Toronto Star (the article can be found here), Kayla is a 12 year old who has had to deal with the reality of what kind of assholes adults can sometimes be.

As Kayla pointed out, George Atis was not a member of the coaching staff but decided that he had the right, out of his “concern” for the boys on the team, to make a judgement call on the playing time and abilities of a member of the team and their worthiness to participate in the game. Atis decided, once again let me remind you not as a member of the coaching staff, that her play had not improved and that the boys “didn’t” want to play with her if it wasn’t addressed. Without any coaches input, clearly without ANY regard for the actual role of youth participation in sport Atis attempted to legally restrict Kayla, to deny her the equal chance to play as her teammates without coaches input.

Now I’m not pretending that every player on every team gets equal playing time because we know that’s not how it goes. However for an outside force to attempt to legally restrict a players playing time, to essentially attempt to have her removed from the team goes far beyond that.

There’s so many things that could be broken down in this, read into this scenario as serious lessons society needs to learn. Don’t undermine the coach and his ability and experience in doing his job. Don’t interfer with kids and their desire and right to play the game.

But the point that really gets me, especially since its something I have first hand experience in dealing with is the “concern” for the boys at the near miss incidents where they’ve been exposed to Kayla in the locker room.

Being a girl on a guys team can be the best and worst thing. I know what it’s like to be the only girl in a locker room. You can make great friends, learn to get along and deal with the opposite sex in a much healthier and more socially beneficial way particularly when you hit the teenage years.

For many years I was the only girl on my local representative inline team and at times the only girl in the club. When I was 16 I made the State Under 16 team as one of the first girl’s to do so. I suffered the mortification of several gaping teammates when I stripped down a sports bra and briefs to put on “skins” and suit up for the game. Despite the fact that I saw far more of them than they ever saw of me, most of them had never had a female teammate and didn’t know how to react and how they did react was less than exemplary. My teammates who had also been my teammates at home didn’t bat an eyelid and treated me with respect and dignity as the teammate I was.

I’ve suffered the anguish when I arrived at a state titles to find there was no home and away change rooms but boys and girls change rooms. Instead of re-branding, two teams were forced to share a room whilst I, as the sole girl competing, was sent to change and prepare on my own (albeit with mum for company) away from my team. Halfway through the tournament I decided I had enough of being an outcast and marched into the boys room to prepare with my teammates. The organisers were less than impressed.

Kayla is 12. Her teammates are 12. If now is not the time to teach them how to behave towards others, to set out ground rules that are not only respectful but accommodating to all members who have earned their place on a team regardless of gender (as well as all the other sadly still discriminatory areas society still struggles with) then when is an appropriate time.

In comments on Buzzing the Net, someone suggested that whilst Atis is clearly a moron, a sentiment shared by most it appears, that the solution is that girls shouldn’t be on boys hockey teams and instead should remain in girl’s competitive leagues.

On this I call bullshit.

For every girl who struggles, there’s one who settles in the middle and there’s one who excel.

Jocelyne and Monique Lamourex, now stars of the USA Women’s Olympic Ice Hockey team, age 12 lead their team to the North Dakota state championship. In the championship game alone, Monique scored twice and Jocelyne after blanking the opposition in the first two periods of the game in goal, switched to forward and scored on her second shift.

They shifted to girls hockey (at Shattuck St Mary’s nonetheless) age 13 only after the “punctured adolescent male pride” they left in their wake became to much and the targets on their back and the behind the play sucker punches became to much for any 13 year old who just wanted to play the game.

That’s just one story. There’s thousands more like that where female players have pushed themselves, grown as players and people by playing competition equal to their own. It is never the girls with the problem

So what happens in Kayla’s story? Humiliated and heartbroken Kayla walked away from her team. She quit under the embarrassment of a parents actions and joined a local women’s team.

It is lucky that, unlike many others would have, Kayla did not quit the game all together. In a society where kids are overweight, under athletic and so many other things, we should be doing everything we can to make sure kids not excel in, but participate and involve themselves in sport. The point of childhood sport is not to win (though it sure is fun) but to learn the lessons that can be so well taught by sport.

So to Kayla Watkins and any other girl who still ‘dares’ to play on a boys team in what is still so much a boys game I say this: Play with pride, play with heart. Sometimes it sucks what they will do to you how they will treat you and sometimes it will hurt what they say and you’ll need a thick skin but if you love this game, love to play don’t ever dare let someone tell you that you can’t and that you shouldn’t. Don’t let anyone suggest you are less equal than your male counterparts because that is a lie.

Stay strong my sisters on skates.

On Red Ice : A Reflection on a Semester of Sport Sociology

admin — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 11:40:47 +0000

“I’d rather see a guy fight and lose than turn his cheek and not fight of all and I think a lot of the players are like that. You pretty well realise that you have to fight, otherwise the guys look down at you.”
Tie Domi

“. . . violence in a hockey game . . . is not acceptable in our society . . . [for it] spills over from the arena into the streets.”
Judge Harris in Regina v. Ciccarelli

I know 6 different ways to repair a cut from a fist to the face dependent on both the cut’s location and how heavy the person is bleeding. I know the best way to treat a broken nose so a player can get back into a game and how to get blood from a jersey without having to take it off. I even know the best way to deal with someone who has been concussed by an opposition fist and can barely tell me his own name let alone how to get to the locker room. All these dubious skills I have learnt from ice hockey.

For the last decade hockey has ruled my life and I imagine it will do so for many decades to come. I have lived and breathed this game as one of its most committed and passionate proponents on this continent and have played, coached and administrated the game at the countries highest levels. Currently, I volunteer my time as a Director of the Australian Ice Hockey League and a large portion of my time is spent determining and dealing with penalties and suspensions the aftermath of the more physical aspects of this game.

Personally, I have always perceived hockey (and in deed most sport) to be of immense social benefit, arguing that it developed character and instilled skills in all children that would greatly enhance their lives away from the game. Before SOCY2280 I never once had stopped to question whether all these benefits I ascribed to sporting participation were being counteracted by one of the most significant aspects of the sport I loved most dearly, the dominance of physical and violent actions.

In 2008, I managed to walk away with only a black eye as evidence of the bench clearing brawl that erupted in the penalty box I had been managing for the AIHL. A year later in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, I saw a player barely months older than me take 3 swift shots to the near temple and collapse to the ice, his body racked with convulsions as he had a seizure in front of 10 thousand horrified fans. Later that night I saw a highlight reel of the fight and its aftermath and found myself staring at myself, a close up of my horrified expression and hand covered mouth as I watched the scene unfold.

Beyond this I have witnessed countless hits which have left players with broken bones and concussions so devastating that the ability to return to normal life has been questioned, let alone the possibility of continuing on with their hockey careers. Having born witness to this carnage (for there is no other word for it), I still had never questioned the role and purpose of such behaviour in this game, instead going so as far to implicitly approve this conduct through my teachings of the game.

Hockey has typically had a unique position in sport by sanctioning intense physicality and actually violent engagement that is both disapproved of in the majority of sports and criminal in every day life. Since the games inception and in more dramatic ways in recent times, the hockey community has used both fighting and intense physicality as ways of claiming and establishing a players identity through their perceived displays of toughness and courage evidenced by a willingness to defend their teammates.

It is evident to me that I have never questioned this assertion of importance but I admit I am honestly not sure why I have failed to do so in light of my general attitudes towards violence.

That fighting is part of hockey and that it always will be has long been the dogma of the game, a form of totemic expression that fans, players and commentators alike cling to. To question the role of such behaviour can often get you labelled a pussy or a pansy, or confronted with the accusation that you’re trying to “feminize the game”.

It is suggested that our moral decision making processes emerge from our social interactions within the relevant sport or ‘game’. It could be contended then that my support for the violent actions within hockey arises from my interaction with other, predominately male athletes and personalities who have presented the behaviour as both correct but desirable in succeeding within the sport. Perhaps, it is a side effect of my desire to fit in and maybe also from the fear of being viewed as something apart from the macho world I so wish to be accepted into as one of the ‘boys’ that I have so unquestioningly adopted this view point and subsequently failed to second guess the role of the “act” of fighting.

However, whilst both of these factors have, I believe in some way contributed to my support (or lack of thoughtful criticism) of such violence behaviour, I believe the biggest culprit in this behaviour (other than myself) is game reasoning.

Game reasoning is the moral reasoning process that occurs during participation in competitive sports and how the process of sporting participation influences the moral development and reasoning of its participants. This mental process sets sport apart and outside the conception of real life with sporting participants justifying their moral and ethical decisions in a sphere that is fundamentally different and separate to their every day life morals. Perhaps this is the impact act of the achievement motivation on our society, that our moral and ethical values are influenced and essentially flexible in accordance with the values we play on the obtainment of a specific end goal. When we see something as contributing towards the ultimate goal of success, the moral implications of the behaviour are clearly perceived as less dramatic or “wrong” as they contribute to the obtainment of an invariably positive outcome in “success”. In hockey, a players reasoning for engaging in a fight often can fall on the lines of “to inspire the team” or “to get the crowd back in it” both objectives focused around actions which lead to a greater chance of wining the game itself.

I think the most glaring example of game reasoning theory and the achievement motivation is my endorsement of fighting on a tactical basis. I have routinely expressed disapproval for fighting in Australian hockey not the basis that I disapproved of the action of fighting itself but that due to the sanctioning of the occurrence under Australian and International rules the tactical and emotional benefits that can be provided by a correctly timed fight are generally outweighed by the disadvantage of having a player tossed from the game.

It appears clear to me that I have previously weighed the moral implications of the behaviour in reflection of the perceived benefits the action provides in obtaining the personal or team goal of winning the game. I have never second guessed the decision of a player to fight, to destroy an opponent (within the bounds of the games rules and unwritten honour codes) when it has lead to the desired outcome in winning the game.

By not speaking out against the violent impacts of both fighting and hockey’s intense physicality and further by allowing others to continue to implicitly promote such behaviour as the means to achievement, we have a follow on effect of such negative impacts through out our game.

It has been shown that children learn new behaviours through observational learning of the social factors in their environment. If they perceive, that the behaviour they observe leads to a desired outcome whether success, adulation or approval, they are more likely to model, imitate and adopt these behaviours themselves. It would seem obvious then that participation in sports that teach or reinforce violent behaviour patterns such as fighting and intense physical contact as we see in hockey can only further perpetuate the learning and continuation of such behaviours.

It has long been a popular belief amongst those, myself included, who eulogize sport that sport itself builds moral character amongst its participants especially children. For many years, I have argued the benefit of youth participation in sports including hockey, spouting the familiar idioms regarding character development. As someone who has a direct impact on children and their development as a coach and administrator of youth programs, the social benefits of hockey was something I could about a lot.

Now after considering social learning theory I am caused to wonder whether these children have been better off finding another sport than the one I loved so deeply? At the commencement of a child’s participation in hockey, violence is strongly regulated and generally absent from the game. However, once one hits their teenage years, a dramatic transition occurs where ones willingness and aptitude for engaging in intensely physical conduct suddenly become one of the main indicators of ability and prowess in the game. More than 1 player has made a name and a career for themselves based on nothing more than their prowess at the pugilistic arts and a willingness to engage in such combat.

Further, this social learning is not just limited to those who learn in order to play. It has been shown that violence in hockey spills over into violence in other social settings not only by those who participate in the game but by those who watch. The prevalence of violent behaviour in those who represented the pinnacle of the sport can hardly be ignored. Whilst we may not explicitly teach this behaviour, seeing those who have excelled in the sport engage in such activities invariably teaches the viewer this aggressive behaviour and additionally reinforces its acceptability.

2 weeks ago I watched a player who I had seen walk through my rink in Seattle thrown from behind into the boards at an incredible speed. He was ever so lucky to walk away from the incident and his aggressor was handed a 12 game suspension. Watching the hit over and over it hit close to home as I realized it could very well have been one of my players or friends who played in that very same league on the receiving end and maybe that time they wouldn’t be so lucky. Further, it could very well have been my friends, my brother, indeed any hockey player in any league in the world who now fails to differentiate the unacceptable nature of this violent and devastating behaviour.

I sit here now at the end of my course in a state of what can only be described as cognitive dissonance, suddenly at odds with staunchly held beliefs I had never questioned before I stepped foot in SOCY2280.

My struggling point is such that despite all the information and logic before me, despite knowing the numbers and theories that go against the role of such behaviour in my game, part of me still desires a heavily physical game of hockey. Part of me will always love a good fight and a hard hit and I think that is and always will be part of the attraction of the game for many, myself included.

I have come to the realization now however that in teaching the game to the young, in administrating and developing the game itself I simply cannot blindly support the “how hockey should be” dogma of years and generations past. To do so would not only fail to rectify the dangers and issues we now face but make me complicit in the perpetuation of these problems themselves.

And that is something I will not do. Not to the game I love.

Sasky Stewart

Sport has no benefit : Sociology of Sport

admin — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:31:53 +0000

This semester, I have the pleasure of having one subject selection where I can take essentially any subject I want in the entirety of the university, to fulfill my non-law elective requirements. Now requiring students to take 2 non-law subjects (out of the total 32 required for a straight law program) seems rather ridiculous if you’re aiming for diversity and well roundedness but that’s not the point of this.

This semester, I have the pleasure of taking the “Sociology of Sport”. It sounds a bit wanky to a lot of people, but then again they’re probably the people that think of sport as a trivial part of society, as a game, and fail to fully recognize the wider implications and affect of sport itself within our society on both personal and communal levels.

Currently, the rituals of sport engage more people in a shared experience than any other institution or cultural activity today. (Burstyn 1999). Roughly 70 % of the worlds population (4.7 billion views) took in part of the Beijing Olympics. In Australia, more sporting heroes have been Australian of the Year than scientists, and as a society, we find greater pride in sporting achievements than any other measure of pride.

Sport brings inclusion, identification and unification. They instill values we perceive to be important to society that of competition, participation and equality. Educationally, they teach us good sportsmanship, work ethic and how to set and achieve goals.
However, this is idealistic. Vince Lombardi encouraged hatred of the opposition, high schools have removed handshake lines because of fights post games and NBA coaches have fined their players for sportsmanlike behaviour with the opposition.
In this day and age the fact that sport helps build character is generally accepted without question. However, at the start of the 19th century, it was thought that sport had “no clear social value and no sense that it contributed to the improvement of the individuals character.”

Here’s the thing though. WE can’t prove that sport has any benefit what so ever. You can imagine how well that went over when the lecturer told me that. I had that sudden sickening feeling in my stomach that I wasn’t going to like what I was hearing.
Because of the nature of society and our inability to hold all factors but the participation in sport constant, we can’t for sure determine whether the experience of sport changes people, or are people with certain qualities subconsciously drawn to play sport or chosen by specific coaches.

What has been shown though, is that sport may be terrible for kids. Academics that have reviewed the research in this area generally agree that there is no evidence to support the claim that sport builds character. A study of teenage Canadian male hockey players show that the longer they’re involved in hockey the greater they accept the importance of cheating, the more they feel violent behaviour is not only legitimate but EXPECTED by the coach the more they are likely to use illegal tactics.

You can picture me by now in this class, shrinking down in my seat and kind of wanting to run off as the lecturer systematically breaks down everything I’ve ever believed in sport. Part of me wanted to jump up and down and say NO you can’t be right! You’re wrong! It’s hard to do that though when every argument’s backed up with scientific research.

Here’s the kicker though. Despite all the information I’ve cited, sport is in itself neither inherently good nor bad. What sport is however, is what we make it. The spectrum for positive change and influence through sport is less aligned with sport itself and more aligned with those who surround sport. It is the influence of coaches, of teachers and parents that make the sporting experience what it is to kids, the most impressionable of participants.

When our lecturer said this, when she impressed on us the serious position we held (I’m the only law student in the class, and one of only a handful who isn’t studying either human movement or education) as the future coaches, teachers and administrators of sport, I felt a little bit of relief. I wasn’t off base when it came to my opinion of sport and its power, but just needed to re-align the way I conceptualized it and its relationship with its participants.

So here it is, from my view point. Sport is one of the biggest things in my life. It has been one of the biggest influences in my life as I have grown up but when I look back, reflect on everything I’ve learnt from my participation with hockey I agree with my lecturer on her assessment.

What I have learnt from sport has not come from sport itself. The physical activity of playing goal has not taught me how to set goals, but the process of learning to play goal, the practice necessitated if I wanted to improve, the sacrifices I’ve had to make for the sport itself have. It was not blocking a shot which taught me the value of hard work and dedication, but a mother who expected nothing less from me, who impressed on me the values of giving everything I had in what I chose to take on, sport being no exception.

Sasky xoxo

In Remembrance of What Was and What Will Continue

admin — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 05:06:22 +0000

Stereotypically men deal with things by ignoring about it and women deal with things by talking about it. In this day and age, it seems like both genders deal by tweeting about it. That’s how I learnt today in a tweet by @JayOnrait that Brian Burke’s son Brendan had passed. It is always sad when anyone, let alone a child passes. However, when it is someone within the hockey community the pain extends through so many other people, belying the closeness that is so valued in hockey.

I grew up in a small country town who’s main interests were drinking, cows and football. My dad put in swimming pools for a living and my mother raised us and cut hair. I was lucky however, to have two of the most accepting parents you could imagine. My father once drove a bus for a drag tour and also (in his 20′s) routinely dressed up as a Japanese Geisha for reasons unknown. My mother was a hairdresser. They never judged, accepted everyone and taught me much the same.

Brendan Burke came out to his team mates, many of whom probably didn’t come from families like mine, but grew up in towns like the one I did, small, country and undeniably close minded. He had listened to years and years of chirping centered around insults to ones sexuality, the perceived ultimate in insults if locker room trash talk was any indication. It had lead to him quitting playing in his final years of high school, unable to bear the talk, the degradation of his self. Still he came out, running the risk of loosing the trust and friendship of the hockey brotherhood he had found as a student manager at Miami-Ohio.

Not only did he come out to his hockey team, he came out to a father that is widely regarded as a prototype of masculinity in an already masculine sport. He takes a risk, at loosing a family that so many of us could never consider making. He takes a risk at rejection and shame that would send so many of us cowering and preferring to hide ourselves rather than run those risks. Instead, he finds acceptance grounded in the common sense belief that someones worth goes far beyond their sexual orientation, that persons value cannot be measured by who they love but by how they live.

The media jumps on this story, of the famous father’s acceptance of his son, the overwhelming acceptance of the hockey community to something still so taboo and suddenly Brendan Burke is everywhere, and everyone? Everyone is okay.

When Brendan Burke came out everyone heard about it. Thousands of hockey players across the country, across the world suddenly had a little bit of light they may not have had before. If Brian Burke can be okay with it, if a college hockey team can, maybe my coach, my team mates, friends and family can too.

Brendan Burke wanted to end the pattern of homophobia that was endemic to hockey and other sports. He wanted it to be okay for anyone to be who they were and to not feel shame for that, to be free to live how they wished without fear of loosing the sport and friends that meant so much. It is a goal, a dream many of us share, and in his memory, many of us will continue to carry on.

Your courage in stepping forward so publicly will serve as inspiration to many and the message you came forward with of acceptance will be remembered and carried forward. You were one of the firsts, but you will not be the last.

Rest in Peace, Brendan.

Quebec v. Cormier: The Law v. The League

admin — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 23:58:00 +0000

I have watched the Cormier video multiple times, pausing and going back just before Tam starts to go into convulsions. I have already seen twice in my life a player go into seizures before me on the ice, one an epileptic team mate, the other the result of a fight gone wrong and both never things I wish to witness again, either on tv or otherwise.

Cormier’s hit is not in question here. It was dirty. He lead with his elbow at a high speed and Tam suffered the consequences. Further, Cormier is not a first time offender, instead a young player with an already disgusting reputation for this kind of play.

So where do we go from here?

Cormier needs to be suspended. Plain and simple. If you’re suspending based on the outcome, like the OHL has been (see Lambias), suspend him for a season. If anything, Cormier is probably more deserving of such a suspension, with the likelihood of injury occurring every time a hit is delivered in that manner being substantially higher than that of Lambias, which in my opinion the resulting injury was more from freak circumstances (the loss of the helmet in the fall, so forth).

However, now, the Quebec Provincial Police are reporting that they are investigating Cormier and the incident in the light of possible laying of charges.

This is where the problem I have arises. I, like a lot of people, have a real issue with the involvement of the police when it comes to punishing unacceptable behaviour or violence in sport.

In the United States, there has been one criminal case against a professional hockey player (there has been four criminal indictments of hockey players, but only one involved an NHL player, David Forbes) and Canada has seen several. The more famous of these include Regina v Ciccarelli (Dino was found guilty of assault, fined $1000 and ordered to serve a day in jail) and Regina v McSorley (the trial mainly centered around whether an incident in a professional hockey game could constitute assault with a weapon).

Society’s criminal sentencing system is underpinned by the concepts of retribution and deterrence. We wish to punish what was done, to restore society to a state prior to the act and in turn prevent its further behaviour. A court can endeavour to do this but when (in accordance with precedent and law) the sentence may be little more than a handful of hours community service, a fine or a suspended sentence, is it going to be as effective as a substantial suspension or even a season long ban to enforce the message to not only the concerned player but the hockey community as a whole? There seems to be no worse punishment for a hockey player than to take away his right to play the game he loves.

Sporting leagues strive to maintain control over the punishment and regulation of its athletes and their actions. They argue, and I agree, that there is no need for outside judicial or legislative involvement in the majority of incidents (if you decapitated someone I’d be inclined to hand someone over to the police however). However, if the League, any league, wishes to remove these incidents from the game of hockey on its own terms, it is swift and harsh punishment that must be dealt out or more and more incidents will end up before the courts.

If Cormier does find himself in a court room in the future, it will not be just him that is on trial, but the sport of hockey and its ability to handle its own problems that will be brought into question.

The Logic of Punishment

admin — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 04:26:20 +0000

When I saw the Ben Fanelli hit this past weekend, saw his team mates huddled together, visible shaken as they wiped away tears with thick gloves, watched as the young boy lay so motionless on the ice, I admit to being reduced to tears. As a hockey player, as someone who’s had helmets kicked off numerous times, been crushed into this and that, and as someone who provides first aid services to hockey teams, seeing such an incident hits far, far to close for home for comfort.

Now we have a 16 year old who’s life has been changed forever, to what extent we don’t know, and a 20 year old who is facing much the same future.

It’s been said over and over again, at every single level of hockey. Headshots need to be taken out of the game.No one’s ever going to question you on that. Not a single fan with their salt as a fan would ever consider headshot a necessary part of the game of hockey.

However, people at all levels of the game and those in the media are saying it wasn’t. So if Branch, like the suspension indicates, wants to set an example of the leagues intolerance to head hitting, wouldn’t it be wiser to chose an actual cheap intentional head shot to do it with?
Maybe its just the lawyer side of my brain that draws this conclusion but wouldn’t it be more reasonable to make an example of the person who with full cognition of the illegal nature and potentially physically devastating impact of their actions, continued to do so?
Most, if not all legal systems find some part of the theoretical basis upon which punishment is developed centering around the concept of punishing the actions and intentions of the person rather than the outcomes of those actions. The most clear example of this is the distinction between sentencing in murder and manslaughter. Murder and manslaughter result in the same outcome, but the punishment varies depending on the intention to commit the act which reasonably would cause harm or on manslaughter’s case the absence of this intention.

The same principle could be drawn here between Liambos and Fanelli. The hit, which arguable on its merits is far less “dangerous” than many we have seen in the NHL this season (Horidchuk’s hit on Boll is one that comes to mine in the vicinity of the glass), shows no intention to in any way what would constitute a headshot at Fanelli. If Fanelli had walked away from the hit, if he’d clambered to his feet and skated off the ice at most we would have seen two minutes in the box for a possible charge and even then that might be more reflexive than deserved.
If punished someone for manslaughter like we would murder in order to make an example of them, would there not be a public outcry about the illegality and unfairness of this?

There won’t be here though. In the OHL, regardless of logic, Branch is the law.

On reflection, the most substantial of injuries Fanelli sustained in the hit were not from the hit itself, but occurring when his unprotected head slammed against the ice. Over the years I have watched many, many helmets fly off, skittering across the ice on collisions in the boards and at center ice. Players of all ages are notorious for failing to adequately tighten helmets and chin straps and I know I’ve spent my fair share of time hanging over benches yelling at them to do just that.
Maybe it’s just me that feels like that in this instance, the major issue highlighted by the events is not that of headshots but of helmet safety and just what a necessity they are. It is so scary to realize, when watching the replays, that this could have very nearly been another Don Sanderson (an event we very nearly saw play out in the NHL already this season when Tom Sestito went down in a fight, smacked his head and fell unconscious).

In a situation where everything that could go wrong went wrong, the OHL felt the need to add another layer to the punishment I’m sure Liambos is already administering himself.

Arguments about the Shoot Out with Jeff Marek and Brynna

admin — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 23:03:07 +0000

Thursday, instead of paying attention to the Private International Law lecture I was in, I got involved in a twitter based debate about the shootout with my favourite HNIC Host Jeff Marek (who has managed to push aside my adoration of PJ Stock by being so damn nice to me on twitter) and good friend Brynna.

Now, I’m not big fan of the shoot out for one reason and one reason only. As someone who plays goal, the fact that an entire game comes down to the individual performance of a goaltender in a one on one situation, resting an outcome on their shoulders, seems rather cruel punishment to me.

In a team sport like hockey, where the team is valued above any individual performance, it seems at odds to institute such a decider that removes that element from the game and turn the outcome into something determined by a skills contest (as Brynna puts it). Whilst Jeff thinks the whole game is a Skills contest (and that’s another enitre argument) on this point he raises a good question. If the shoot out is essentially an extension of the penalty shot, how is a penalty shot any different when it comes to removing a team from a game and placing the pressure on the goalies shoulders?

On this point, in my oh so humble opinion I believe, the penalty shot lacks the finality aspect (except in Overtime as he pointed out, by this time I, in an incredible display of maturity, was sticking my tongue out at the screen in frustration) of a shoot out as well as being a result of the team’s actions in that moment. A penalty shot arises from the mistake of a team during a game, whether that be blowing a coverage to allow a one on one, pulling the player down and if converted to a goal, the game continues allowing the team as a unit to atone for their mistakes through further play.

Whilst the penalty shot and the shoot out attempt are essentially the same thing, identical in every way of performance, the purpose, that of punishing the offending team or determining a winner or loser are essentially different.

However, honestly? The Shootout, as I pointed out to both Brynna and Jeff, and they agreed with me on, isn’t going anywhere. It has become part of our game whether we admit it or not and as long as the NHL believe it adds attraction to the sport and makes their standings life easier it will remain. The shoot out will forever remain one of things that whilst incredibly frustrating to the old school hockey fan is an exercise in futility to complain about.

Admittedly, you’d make a lot less of us hate it if, like we have down here in the AIHL, a 3 – 2 – 1 situation was instituted to balance out the value awarded to games that end in pure wins, SO wins and losses. That’s a whole new argument though.

P.S. My favourite hockey player is absolute money in the SO, so I don’t mind that part even.

P.S.S. Brynna hates the shoot out and would like it gone.

The Uproar re: Georges Laraque

admin — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:28:14 +0000

Everyone has a take, this is mine

It’s been all over the news lately. You can’t miss it. We’re talking about Georges Laraque and the whole Octane 7.0 drama.

Whilst I fail completely as a feminist and don’t have an issue with the scantily clad women in the advert, ones whom compared to recent Dallas Stars Ice Girls videos, are almost conservatively dressed, the main drama has arisen out of a breach of Article 25.1 of the CBA.

As everyone’s now had pointed out to them (and I had pink sharpied in my copy of the CBA) not only do you need to let your team know what you’re up to in regards to endorsements and sponsorship, but you, in accordance with 25.1 you also can’t as part of endorsement or sponsorship be assocaited with an alcoholic beverage, the exception to this being malt based beverages such as beer.

On HNIC tonight, Kelly Hrudey suggested that by not allowing players to endorse an alcoholic beverage the NHL is essentially promoting a double standard. This double standard, in his opinion, is evidence by the fact we see arena’s plastered with beer advertising and that a beer company, Molson, even owns an NHL franchise. With all due respect Mr Hrudey as someone with far more knowledge and a far better job than myself, beer advertising is treated differently to alcohol advertising in respect of allowences by the CBA and if the product had been a malt-based beverage as allowed by the CBA, this situation would not have arisen.

Though Laraque may not have read his contract beyond the figures of how much he was making, you would expect that every NHL agent should and would have an indepth knowledge of the CBA and how its articles and clauses affect their clients. In this instance, the issue is raised : Why did Laraque’s agent not pick up on the problem arising from such an endorsement? I, as a 20 year old Australian fan (albiet one with 3/4′s of a law degree and a rather working knowledge of the CBA), am aware of such a clause.

The main issue however, that this whole debacle brings back to the spotlight is that of the place of alcohol sponsorship in sport. Whilst the NHL already effectively limits sponsorships to that of beer companies, with beer itself being portrayed as essentially an integral and timeless part of the hockey experience (it even got its on page in A Canadian Saturday Night by Andrew Podnieks), should alcohol sponsorship in anyway be allowed, especially due to the prevalance of alcohol related violence?

I know here in Australia the issue was raised recently, and when numbers were released, it was clearly evident that without alcohol sponsorship, nearly ever single Australian sport would suffer substantially to the point where the growth and development of sports in the country would inevitably start to regress. Whilst Australian sport is much more dependent in the absence of tv rights and with smaller markets and population, it is hard to believe the effect would not be substantial. A prime example of this is the recent Molson Giver 5 Commercials. It would not be hard to speculate that the cumulative donation total from such a campaign would be enough to fund the Olympic campaigns for several smaller winter sports.

In my opinion, junior hockey is where the real issue lies. In a league where, atleast in America, none of the athletes, and in Canada, a large portion of the athletes, are below legal drinking ages alcohol sponsorship is rampant. Whilst there is the possibility that no financial alternative is available, particularly in the current economic climate, questions have to be raised about the wiseness of such advertising choices, particlury with the high number of minds open to this negative influence both on the ice and in the stands.

Possibly the most disturbing, and if a fault of the economic climate (due to a lack of alternative options) , saddening examples of this lies in a WHL arena, where no less than 16 ads for alcoholic beverages are present. These ads look down upon on a team of young impressionable boys who last season lost one of their own, a teammate, to alcohol poisoning just two days after his 19th birthday.

Where do we draw the line here between the business reality that without sponsorship and the money it brings that enables JR and other leagues to run and the morality argument that the promotion of alcohol through sports advertising contributes to curren social problems caused by underage and exessive drinking as well as alcohol fueled violence?

With recent moves in the NCAA to drastically cut back or remove alcohol advertising from venues and sports broadcasts what’s stopping hockey?