Bruce Hood has a suggestion, just use the rule book when it comes to controversial hits

And perhaps they had the answer all along but could not see it!

With the NHL all over the map suddenly when it comes to enforcement of overly physical play ( a Cooke hit nets noting, a Wisniewski however merits an eight game suspension) there's a call from a former official to just re-read the rule book in particular Rule 43.1

Rule 43.1, which is easily found in dog eared (well maybe not so much these days it would seem) copies of the NHL rule book (or for net savvy NHL officials available on the internet) outlines what one former on ice official believes is the answer to much of the mayhem in the NHL of the last two months.

Rule 43 - Charging

43.1 Charging - A minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player or goalkeeper who skates or jumps into, or charges an opponent in any manner.

Charging shall mean the actions of a player or goalkeeper who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner. A “charge” may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice.

A minor, major or a major and a game misconduct shall be imposed on a player who charges a goalkeeper while the goalkeeper is within his goal crease.

A goalkeeper is not “fair game” just because he is outside the goal crease area. The appropriate penalty should be assessed in every case where an opposing player makes unnecessary contact with a goalkeeper. However, incidental contact, at the discretion of the Referee, will be permitted when the goalkeeper is in the act of playing the puck outside his goal crease provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.

From that review of the current regulations, Bruce Hood, a former NHL official with a rather sterling resume of officiating consisting of 1,033 NHL regular-season games, 157 Stanley Cup playoff games, three all-star games and three Canada Cup tournaments has explained quite informatively that the solution to the hits to the head, boarding and blind side hits could all easily be tied up into one neat bundle called charging.

Mr. Hood outlines his thoughts for the Globe and Mail on the hottest issue of this NHL season and makes perhaps the best case yet for the NHL that they have the tools necessary to take on the challenges of the cheap shots and ugly incidents, all they have to do is read their own rule book.

Unfortunately for hockey fans (not to mention concerned players) his efforts seem to have fallen on deaf ears, in the course of the Globe and Mail interview Hood explains that he contacted NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman with his thoughts but was provided with a reply that suggested he was wrong.  The Commissioner explaining in reply that in his interpretation of things, such incidents as the Matt Cooke hit of a few weeks ago is legal under the guidelines of the current rule book. 

This is bad news for those hoping for a quick fix to the problem, as past history has shown once Mr. Bettman makes a declaration there is no backing down, no retreat and never, ever do you hear the words "we were wrong".

And there we guess is the problem with the NHL these days, while its reassuring to know that NHL officials can read, it appears that comprehension is a bit of a struggle, not to mention interpretation of what seems quite simple to follow.

As Mr. Hood explains the charging rule, it seems perfectly logical to think that this could very well be the solution to  the string of ugly incidents that threaten to return the NHL to the back of the sports entertainment lines behind the likes of UFC, Roller Derby and any other combination of pseudo sports you can think of.

Alas, it's not the first time the league has been provided with a path out of a nasty situation (hello Mr. Balsillie sorry about those Coyotes) and has chosen to stick its head back into the sand, staying the course regardless of the path of misery it portends.

When give the chance to do the right thing and solve a problem before it gets completely beyond its grasp, the current regime always seems to dig in and take to the trenches, espousing a solid we know best mantra and a declaration to damn the outcry approach.

That might be good for Mr. Bettman's image as a stick to your guns executive, but in the end it seems that his empire is one that is showing far too many cracks these days, a good number of which seem to be rather self inflicted mistakes that could be easily solved.

Then again the easy route just doesn't seem like the NHL's style these days, now does it.

This item first appeared on the HockeyNation blog

They were talking hockey in Vancouver today, but not in a good way!

Well the NHL has its wish, fans in Western Canada were talking hockey after the all star break, but nobody was coming up with anything good to say. After a three day break of meetings, skills tests and a glorified practice skate and shoot, the league will soon be sent back to rigors of the regular season schedule.

While the players pick up their game from where they left off, the fans have much more to chew over. And it would seem that in Western Canada at least, there’s a pretty bad case of indigestion.

The Bill Good Show, a talk show on Vancouver’s news and information station CKNW, took on the topic of NHL indifference to the West on Thursday. Good had a number of guests for a one hour examination of how the NHL is treating the hinterlands, coming off the botched scheduling consultations of the last week in Dallas.

Good talked with CKNW sportscaster Neil MacRae, author, journalist and Fan 590 radio personality Stephen Brunt, Montreal Gazette columnist Pat Hickey and Ottawa Citizen Hockey writer Allen Panzeri.

The course of the one hour program went over a number of contentious issues in the West, such as the scheduling bungle this year and apparently now next year as well, the power of the Commissioner or lack of when it comes to the good of the game and rumours of yet another expansion, deemed by all as nothing but a cash grab idea floated by the current owners.

Macrae led the charge for the West, in his own caustic but correct style on this issue he basically said that the eastern teams were leaving their western brothers out to dry; such is their own course of self interest east of the Manitoba border. His point about scheduling explained all you needed to know about the mess the NHL finds itself in, where the Canucks will face the Minnesota Wild at least eight times in a regular season, but will seemingly never see the likes of Sidney Crosby or other rumoured eastern stars any time soon.

Hickey and Panzeri offered up some background on the possible thought process that goes through the Canadiens and Senators management teams, who seem to have turned their backs on their western cousins this time around.

The death knell was sounded for the CBC’s Hockey Day in Canada feature, which most likely will see an American team or two involved in next years production, should they decide to carry on with their tradition. With the same scheduling plan in place for 2007-08 there’s a very good chance at least one of the Canadian teams won’t be suiting up for the triple header of hockey worship. A boneheaded error if ever there was one by the NHL if it comes to pass.

Stephen Brunt gave an informative examination of the issues under Gary Bettman’s leadership, pointing out that while many would like to think Bettman can crack a whip, he really is at the beholden of those who employ him.

When the hockey folk weren’t providing their opinions, the audience took to the lines and were not happy in their comments over the direction of the NHL these days and the apparent dis-regard for what the fans really want.

It was a lively one hour discussion and proves just how passionate that folks in Vancouver and British Columbia can get about their game and the stewardship it is under from the NHL offices in New York City.

It probably will be helpful to Mr. Bettman in one thing at any rate, not that there is any danger of it happening any time soon, but if he was planning on a trip to the western territories, he might wish to take a pass. He won’t be the most popular guy at the rink should he show up in the next little while.

You can listen in to the entire hour program by checking out the CKNW audio vault here, the program aired between 9 and 10 am on Thursday, it will be left on the audio vault for the next two weeks. Giving the Commissioner and the eastern owners lots of time to test the winds coming in from the west!

The above post first appeared on my HockeyNation blog, for more items about hockey check it out!

The Bettman Backlash?

Before the NHL’s year long sabbatical a year ago, Gary Bettman’s cache in Canada was rather limited, having overseen the relocation of both Quebec and Winnipeg to American markets, the perception of the Commissioner as being somewhat anti-Canadian in his thoughts on Canadian franchises reached a fever pitch.

It was not uncommon that in his rare forays into the frozen wastelands of the NHL he would be greeted by a sound universally known as and indication of distrust. That wasn’t Lou he was hearing from Edmonton to Ottawa.

Perhaps an unfair perception by the cradle of the puck, but none the less there was a definitive distrust of anything he said or did when it came to the fate of Canadian franchises.

Things began to turn a bit for Bettman when the Ottawa franchise suffered it’s meltdown during the Bryden years, rather than smooth the way for the moving vans to hit the 401, Bettman counseled patience and eventually the Ottawa faithful were rewarded with Eugene Melnyk’s rather secure wallet.

The unofficial Canadian franchise in Buffalo likewise dodged the relocation bullet, as the NHL propped up the struggling Sabres in their Buffalo home while the sought out more secure and interested owners (not to mention ones without legal problems).

The lock out year brought the fans in the north fully on the side of the Commissioner as cost certainty, wage caps and a need to knuckle down financially was sold as the best way to keep a strong Canadian presence in the NHL.

With the lock out year out of the way, even Edmonton, once considered the next possible team to bolt from Canada, had stabilized over the last few years, last year returning to that place of past glory a Stanley Cup final.

All in all, the impression was that while Quebec and Winnipeg were gone, the remaining teams were strong in the new NHL, and who knew, with a set wage scale, costs under control and a few struggling franchises in the sunbelt there just may be life in the Canadian hinter land once again.

But, for Mr. Bettman, all that good karma has run out. The mess that has become the Pittsburgh Penguins sale has brought the Canadian hockey fan to the boiling point once again. The unspoken belief is that the NHL purposely has put too many roadblocks in the way of moving the Pens north of the 49th. Under the principle of wanting to keep the team in Pittsburgh, the idea of moving them to Hamilton, Kitchener, Winnipeg or Quebec City is considered a long shot at best. This despite the simple fact that this Pens team would be a sell out in any Canadian city it chose to make home.

What annoys Canadians besides the obvious slight at their hockey genealogy, is the fact the list of possible suitors for the Pens isn’t exactly an A list of hockey hotbeds. While Houston might be workable spot, the prospect of Kansas City, Oklahoma City, Las Vegas, the perennial Portland or the suddenly surprising Seattle leave many hockey fans in the north just a little bemused.

Stephen Brunt has examined the Bettman agenda for the Globe and Mail; it’s a fascinating look at how he’s shaping the league, still sticking to a foot print in markets that aren’t showing a particular affinity for the game.

It won’t be something that Canadian hockey fans will enjoy reading, but at least they’ll have a better understanding as to why the NHL still insists on fanciful dreams of sunbelt hockey thriving, while the frozen home of the game offers up it’s unrequited love for the sport.

THE GAME
Brunt: Bettman's vision for NHL unwavering
STEPHEN BRUNT
Globe and Mail Update
December 22, 2006

Not so long ago, the commissioner of the National Hockey League spoke to a crowd in Edmonton and was rewarded with a standing ovation.

That was during the great hockey labour war, when Gary Bettman managed to convince many Canadians that the battle was being fought by ownership on behalf of small-market clubs on this side of the border.

It was a crock, but it was an appealing argument in a place where anti-player and anti-union feelings already ran high.

And after Bettman won his glorious victory, it was appealing, also, to extrapolate just a little bit. Maybe in the new, cost-controlled NHL, there was a place for more Canadian teams.

Maybe the retreat from the free market when it came to player salaries would allow more modest, but actual hockey-loving burghs back into the club.

The events this week surrounding the Pittsburgh Penguins are mighty murky, with prospective owner Jim Balsillie suggesting he was side-swiped by the NHL at the last minute, and the league, through deputy commissioner Bill Daly, suggesting that if Balsillie says any such thing, he's not telling the truth.

We may never know whether Balsillie was seriously contemplating moving the Penguins north, or whether the NHL, terrified of that possibility, did its best to stop him by attaching a long list of conditions to the sale.

Still, there's one crystal-clear truth that emerged amid all the finger pointing: The 40-year-old dream that spurred the NHL's great 1960s expansion, and more explicitly, the conceit that has been at the heart of Bettman's reign as commissioner, is still very much alive — at least in the heads of those who run the league. They believe, still, that professional hockey can become a significant factor in the American sports environment.

They believe, still, that there is serious money to be made from U.S. network television. They believe, still, that hockey can be dropped into non-traditional markets, expanding the sport's "footprint," seeding new shinny hotbeds wherever it goes.

Asked this week about the league's policy on relocating franchises, Daly said there is nothing to prevent a team from moving to Canada. But in the criteria he laid out by which the governors would accept or reject a move, the good of the league — in terms of expanding the market base and satisfying television networks — was clearly of greater importance than increasing the NHL's presence in places packed with rabid fans where it has already fully exploited the broadcast possibilities.

The league's position is that it's now impossible for an owner to pull an Al Davis, to simply change cities in the middle of the night and then dare the commissioner to stop him. Bylaws have been amended in the light of an appeal-court ruling that may well have closed that legal loophole.

So if a team can't go where the governors don't want it to go, and if they're still buying in to the notion of the NHL as a significant, continental brand, then hello Kansas City, hello Las Vegas, hello Houston and hello Oklahoma City — and forget about Winnipeg, Quebec City or Kitchener-Waterloo.

There are new, or relatively new, arenas available in all of those U.S. cities now, and according to the league, there are several would-be owners for the Penguins, even if Balsillie is gone for good. Barring a last-minute cave-in by the politicians in Pennsylvania (which isn't out of the question), you'll soon enough be hearing how Sidney Crosby will sell the sport to the American heathens from a new home.

You say this feels familiar, that you've been here before, that you vaguely remember a fellow named Gretzky in Los Angeles, the Stanley Cup being contested in tropical climes, glowing pucks, hockey-playing robots and the U.S. breakthrough being at hand.

And now, there are all of those half-empty buildings, television coverage on a network (Versus) a whole lot of people can't seem to locate, a network deal for no money down and a free fall from being almost the fourth major sport to something approaching niche, cult, hardcore-only status. (Question: When did hockey last appear on the cover of Sports Illustrated, that arbiter of mainstream American sports taste? Answer: Aside from a Steve Yzerman commemorative edition produced for the Detroit market, it was Oct. 14, 2002.)

But Bettman is undeterred. He is still trying to accomplish the mission he was hired to perform. He can't make a hard left turn now, or ever.

When might the NHL add teams in Canada? When the business implodes, or when the vision changes — which might amount to the same thing.

Either would require, or inspire, a change at the top.

The above post first appeared on my HockeyNation blog, for more items about hockey check it out!