po

It’s Happening!

No response, Dec 01, 2009

It’s really happening. Once again I’m off to the wide world of North America to work with a hockey time. This time it’s the Everett Silvertips of the WHL, my first choice and absolute dream team to be heading to! Doug Soetaert (who’s name gives me so much trouble with spelling) the teams General Manager has been so incredibly generous with his allowing of me to come and work with his team for two and a half months. For this I am incredibly excited, and will be eternally grateful. Everett truly is a model franchise, and the success they’ve had in a mere 6 and a bit seasons producing the likes of Peter Mueller, Zach Hamill and Taylor Ellington and consistently figuring in the WHL playoff race has been incredibly. I can’t wait to get there and learn all I can.


Myspace Countdown Clock

Naked Shootout : Article 1 – 7 – A Collection

No response, Nov 30, 2009

Articles 1 – 7 of the CBA are your precursors. They set out some general guides which whilst important to the functioning of the agreement, don’t make-up the “pith and marrow” of the agreement.

Article 1 – Definitions.

Definitions! I love definitions sections of legislation and agreements. For a lack of a better description, and with points awarded for complete obviousness of the term, definitions define what certain teams.  Such definition is really essentially, particularly when they get in the hands of shifty lawyers, who like to suggest certain interpretations of a term to suit their goals. The CBA definitions section enlightens with such pearls as:

“League” or “NHL” refers to the National Hockey League.

“All-Star Game” means the hockey game so designated by the NHL in which All-Star Players play.

However, as not to make light completely of the definitions system, which as I said actually serves a very useful function there are many useful definitions contained within the agreement. A useful examples of this include “European Player” which affects draft exceptions on the basis of having not played in North America and being above a certain age; or a “Free Agent” which is the umbrella term which breaks down into “Restricted Free Agent” and “Unrestricted Free Agent” all defined.

Continue reading »

Naked Shootout: A Stripped Down Look at the CBA

1 response, Nov 24, 2009

The CBA is a big, scary 457 page document which has been legalised to death.  How do I know it’s been legalised to death? I’m a law student.  I see this shit every single day with fabulously over-written legislation and research papers as well as within ancient textbooks. I’m used to it. I decipher it for an education.

The CBA is the bible of the hockey business. It governs how we acquire players, what we can do with them, how much we can pay them, how we can construct and run our teams, and the finicky procedural rules we must adhere to.

The number of fans however, that completely, or even reasonably understand the finer details of the CBA,  is minimal. Reading the CBA is a daunting task. I know this. I’ve read it twice (I’m sick like that) .

To save you the trouble however, I’ve read it again for you and this time I’m breaking it down, Article by Article.

So here I present! Naked Shootout: A Stripped Down Look at the CBA

Well I present it sometime soon..

It’s not so much me… It’s Roenick

No response, Nov 16, 2009

My first ever NHL game was San Jose v Toronto at the Shark Tank. It was Ron Wilson’s return to San Jose and  a match up between the first  NHL team I’d fallen in love with and the team I loved the most now. After watching for so many years, I finally got to walk into an NHL arena and comprehend the amazing-ness (for lack of a better term) of live hockey.

To celebrate the occasion, my geekiness and excitement about the game I’d made a sign on the Cal-Train out from San Francisco with my friend. A knock off of the ever so popular mastercard commercial it read:

Plane Tickets from Australia $3,000.

Two Tickets to the Sharks Game: $100.

Saying I saw JR Play : Priceless.

Pre-game saw me standing against the glass with my friends, in awe as I was finally seeing all these players I’d watched for years on my tiny computer screen in front of me. Whilst I was busy staring off in awe, someone skated over and elbowed JR, pointing in my direction. My friend who had been watching, pointed it out as he came barrelling past the first time, grinned spun around a second time and stopped, tapped the sign through the glass and winked. I then let out the most un-dignified squeel in existence.

Two days later, I found myself in the Sharks locker room, a guest of Randy Hahn, the Sharks Commentator as he introduced me around. Roenick was barreling around the room, heading out the door when Randy called him over. “You had the sign”. I just about fell over and instead nodded mutely and possibly blushed.

For the next few minutes, I chatted to Roenick about hockey, how the sport was developing in Australia and how I had found such a love for the sport and ended up in the Sharks Locker room. He talked about always wanting to come down, about maybe doing something to help the sport here and in that moment I became an even bigger fan for the man that was already a legend for both his play and personality. Later in the day, I passed him again in a hallway and was greated, despite being in the middle of preparing for a game, with a hair tousel, a wink and a “G’Day Australia”.

During that nights pre-game skate, I stood behind several small children, and when JR skidded to a stop and waved to me through the glass the kids nearly fell over with suprise. I nodded back, pointing at the kids and within moments several pucks came flipping over into their hands. I wasn’t sure whose grin was bigger at that time, mine with appreciation for a hockey player’s understanding of what small things can mean, or the kids for getting their hands on a puck directly from one of the games greats.  T

Since then, I’ve exchanged an email or two with the man himself and definatley some day I hope to get him down here. I’m going up for the Board of Directors of the Australian Ice Hockey League shortly, and organising hopefully an international friendly, or atleast a tournment to open our rink and getting the greeat man down here would be something I’d love to do.

But until that time, and for a long time I”m sure, I will remember JR as one of the classiest and nicest hockey players I’ve ever met.

(I also have an exam on Private International Law in 3 hours so better STUDY)

The Logic of Punishment

No response, Nov 07, 2009

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.

Study Mandated Break

No response, Nov 01, 2009

I’m taking a “break” for two and a bit weeks from here, purely because it’s Exam time at Law School and when you’re pulling massive massive study days, finding time to write a blog (no matter how much you love to do it!) kind of doesn’t happen.

So once I’ve sloughed my way through Property, Patent and Trademark, Private International and Evidence law, I’ll be back to continue sharing my random theories and thoughts on this amazing sport.

Escaping Again : A New Internship Quest

No response, Oct 27, 2009

Last summer, I packed my backpack and fled the Australian summer for the North American winter. I saw snow, had a white christmas, got my first excruciating hang over and most of all, completely immersed myself in hockey.

I talked General Managing, Team Development and Public Relations with Doug Soetaert and Jon Rosen in Everett, learnt about the in workings of the broadcast media from Drew Remenda, Randy Hahn and the CSN crew in San Jose. In Chicago I talked about fan development with the Hawk’s Annie Camins and Boston saw Don Sweeney take an hour of his day to discuss player development systems. The ultimate though? The 6 weeks I spent observing and being part of the day to day life of the Washington Capitals.

A year later, I’d say I’m getting itchy feet again. I’m never one for sitting still, and whilst I have plenty to do in the upcoming university break, 3 1/2 months off seems like the perfect time to learn and in turn, use this knowledge to the benefit of the AIHL  and hockey in Australia (as well as adding to my resume for future hockey employment!).

So once again, I’ve started writing letters, planning and sending packages out to people and organization I’d love to learn from — ranging from the NHLPA, Goal’s and Dream’s Programs, the League itself to player agency’s and Jr Hockey teams.

Let’s see how I go this time? Maybe I need some medicating. Or a really good hobby.

Arguments about the Shoot Out with Jeff Marek and Brynna

No response, Oct 23, 2009

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. :-)

Great Moments in Youtube: Stefan Legein

No response, Oct 21, 2009

In a sport that often lacks real characters, with its very high proportionate of softly spoken and awkwardly shy men from Middle Canadians, when someone steps forward with something that even resembles a bit of spark and a sense of humour that they’re willing to show in front of a television camera, we latch on. Today’s example, and one of my personal favourites of our new/next generation of interview comedians is the irrepressible and down right smart mouthed Stefan Legein.

Legein’s most known for being the kid that, when faced with making the jump from the OHL to the AHL, instead chose to walk away from the game, having burn out at barely 20. Since then, and thankfully, for many of us who are fans of the Oakville forward’s in your face, tear your helmet from your head (as exhibited below) style of play, Legein has returned to the game, and now graces Syracuse, Columbus and a town near you with his wickedly quick sense of humor.

Three of my favourite moments of Stefan Legein.

Continue reading »

The Uproar re: Georges Laraque

No response, Oct 18, 2009
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?

Page 2 of 3«123»