Sports Logic

We've decided to have a weekly feature around here called Manic Mondays. The basic premise is similar to that of The Quiz on the NHL on TSN or formerly (and arguably much better) 10 Minute Misconduct on Hardcore Hockey Talk. Here is our first kick at the proverbial can.

TOPIC #1: Is there anything wrong with the NHL's point structure and if so, how do they fix it?

SHAUN SAYS: I honestly don't think the NHL needs to change its point structure. Are there flaws? Sure there are. But what are the alternatives? We could have a 2 for a win and 0 for a loss in overtime or a shootout. I hate that idea because it potentially rewards a team for winning a skills competition instead of a team game.

I've heard the 3-2-1 point structure and I hate that too because it will promote trap hockey and any team with a 3^rd period lead will shut it down.

If there's one system that I am leaning toward, it is a 2 for a win, 0 for a loss and 1 for a tie. That's right, bring back ties and play 10 minutes of 4-on-4 overtime.

Of course, I think they should just leave it the way it is because it gives the casual fan what they like (a shootout) and it doesn't dramatically affect the integrity of the game.

WAYNE SAYS: This has long bothered me, ever since the League brought in the "loser point." Then, they brought in the shootout to make sure every game ends with a clear winner with two points…but kept the loser point. I can tell you, in no uncertain terms, I hate the loser point and think it needs to go the way of the do-do bird.

So, here's what I think the league should do: quit rewarding teams for getting through 60 minutes of hockey and automatically earning a point. If you want to see participation ribbons handed out, go watch an elementary school track meet. I agree with Shaun about upping the overtime period to ten minutes; however, I'd keep the shootout. I don't buy the argument that a team could lose the division title or miss the playoffs because of a gimmick. If your team loses that position on the last day of the year via the shootout, perhaps they weren't quite good enough in the first place.

TOPIC #2: Did the Ontario Hockey League get the Michael Liambis suspension right?

SHAUN SAYS: There will be no sitting on the fence on this one. The OHL completely screwed this decision up. It's a tragedy that a player was seriously injured on this play, but if you watch the hit again, Ben Fanelli's helmet is flying off at impact.

There's no doubt that the hit was dangerous, but if Fanelli's helmet stays on, I feel comfortable enough to say he skates off under his own power.

There was a very similar hit only a week later in the OHL where the player's helmet stayed on, and while he was hurt, I seriously doubt we'll see a year-long suspension for it.

I know the bleeding hearts like Bob McKenzie and Jim Kelley praised David Branch for his "courageous decision" but I think Branch took the easy way out on this one. If he wanted to do something courageous, he would mandate that all chin straps have to be done up properly instead of being so loose that players can trip over them so they can look cool.

WAYNE SAYS: By now, we've all seen the hit. Because of the run Michael Liambas takes at Ben Fanelli, it's a grey area hit. But the hardest thing to watch about the play is Fanelli turning his back to reverse the puck and putting himself in a very, very dangerous position. As Kelly Hrudey wrote (and then missed the boat on), players are learning the game in a dangerous way. They don't call it turning; they call it "protecting the puck." OHL Commissioner David Branch was not courageous to suspend a player for the season and playoffs for this hit. He made an example of a player because of an unfortunate injury. For the people that cry that suspensions should match the injury time…here you go. But this was a complete overreaction.

I hate to blame the victim, but if Fanelli doesn't turn his entire body to the rest of the rink to make a simple backhand reverse play and has his chin strap on properly, the injuries are not nearly as bad...if he sustains any. Liambas is not without fault though; he took a long run and hit a player in the numbers. He got a major for boarding and a game misconduct. A suspension for a dangerous hit would be completely acceptable, but not this. 10 games would suffice and would send a message to the players…But of course, mere days later, we saw a similar hit in the OHL. Looks like the Liambas suspension didn't affect much.

TOPIC #3: Was the NHL right is suspending Curtis Glencross for 3 games for his hit on Chris Drury?

For those who haven't seen the hit, it's available right HERE

SHAUN SAYS: I know this may shock some people since I am a big fan of Glencross, but I'm okay with the suspension to a certain degree. The puck was nowhere around Drury when he was hit, so it's textbook interference. That being said, three games is a little stiff.

If the NHL wants to get rid of these types of hits, I have absolutely no problem with it. As usual with the NHL we will see another 2-3 of these hits next week and they will all go unpunished for a variety of reasons.

Consistency is not something the NHL is familiar with, but as I said before, if the NHL wants to get rid of the "hitting up" epidemic, I am all for it. The open ice hit where the guy is admiring his pass and gets flattened isn't something I'm in favour of suspending, but I will support their decision to remove these hits from the game.

WAYNE SAYS: Now, the league should be getting rid of this play. Drury never expected to get hit because he never touched the puck. I really like Glencross as a player and what he brings to his team, but these plays are very dangerous. If Drury plays the puck, then he has to expect contact to be coming. Glencross anticipated a pass from the D-man to the Rangers captain and acted…but it was not the right action.

Do I agree with three games? I think it's about as long as possible for the play and would have been happy with one or two as well.

TOPIC #4: If there is one thing you could change to make the NHL on-ice product better, what would it be?

SHAUN SAYS: Ideally I would love to get rid of the neutral zone trap, but short of calling some "illegal formation" that's impossible to call and impossible to remove otherwise.

Aside from that, I've always been a fan of Larry Pleau's idea when it comes to delayed penalties. Pleau thought the defending team should have to clear the puck out of their zone, rather than simply touch the puck before the whistle is blown. I think that has the potential to add a goal or two to the nightly NHL schedule without messing with the integrity of the game.

Obviously there would be a few wrinkles to iron out, like what if the goalie smothers the puck or what if the other team shoots it over the glass while defending that situation, but that's what GM meetings are for (I hope).

WAYNE SAYS: The simplest and best way to improve the game is to forget about adding new rules for headshots and the like and instead just enforce the rules in the book as they are. And to get rid of the rash of hits from behind we see at the NHL level, they need to start calling players for them. In amateur hockey, you aren't allowed to hit a player in the numbers, yet in the NHL we see it all game long. It's time to start handing out two, four and five minute penalties for all dangerous hits from behind. The league can continue to call them boarding penalties, but the point is we see far too many injuries to players hit in dangerous positions along the boards.

Plus if you enforce it at the NHL level, it will filter down to all the younger players watching games. As it stands now, it's hypocritical to hear an NHL announcer talk about a "good hard hit along the boards" that in Amateur hockey would result in a penalty and game misconduct. Also, it wouldn't hurt to remove all the hard plastic from shoulder and elbow pads…which removes the invincibility feeling of players today…not to mention weapons.

TOPIC #5: For lack of a better term, and straight from the Hardcore Hockey Talk playbook (we promise to come up with our own title!), what's bugging you?

SHAUN SAYS: I brought it up in my power rankings, and I'll bring it up here again in further detail. TSN.ca's Ice Chips segment had the same story posted about the Oilers for a week straight. And to call it a story is giving it too much credit because it was one sentence.

In addition to that, Calgary played a game on their damn network on Wednesday night and they couldn't be bothered to post the lines.

Even right now on the Ice Chips Edmonton's story reads "Steve McIntyre was placed on waivers on Monday". And Calgary's story says that Curtis Glencross is suspended for 3 games. Meanwhile there is a novella about what's going on in Toronto West, aka Vancouver.

Spelling MacIntyre's name wrong aside, TSN and TSN.ca have always shown a bias toward their beloved Maple Leafs and to a lesser extent Vancouver and Montreal. I understand that they drive ratings and web hits, but at least put on the appearance of not sniffing their jocks.

I could go on and rant about how TSN.ca's power rankings has Pittsburgh in 11^th because of injuries to Malkin and Gonchar, but Vancouver is 9^th with injuries to Luongo and Daniel Sedin but I will digress.

WAYNE SAYS: Bob McCown and Jim Kelley regularly spout off on Rogers Sportsnet and The Fan 590 radio show about how awful everything in hockey today is. The reality of these "journalists" is they aren't good sources because all they want to do is bitch and moan about topics in order to scare the listeners that an on-ice death in the NHL is imminent. These two are more concerned about being contrary than correct and contribute absolutely nothing to the image or promotion of hockey.