BoA On The Principles Of Sentencing

Normally I don't devote a post to telling you what to go read - that's what the sidebar widget is for - but this post over at Battle of Alberta deserves a bit more of a prompt. If you're interested at all in theories of criminal justice and/or how sports leagues discipline their players, it's a must read.

How The Sabres Got Screwed - Instant Reaction

Here's presumably the best shot the video replay officials had of the goal/no-goal in question:

The puck appears to be right up against the line in that shot (and actually goes further towards the back of the net, though obscured by Henrik Lundqvist's pad). But since the camera is not directly above the goal, you don't even need to make the assumption that it crossed fully in the next frame. Look at these two pics - the puck is in the same exact position in each shot, but the first picture is taken from an angle similar to the goal cam and the second from directly above:


As you can tell, the slightest change in camera angle tells a very different story of the same situation. I understand that the reviewer must see "conclusive evidence" that the puck has crossed the line (i.e. white between the puck and the goal line), but how can the combination of the screen cap above, the fact that the puck continues to move forward after that, the angle of the overhead camera and a simple understanding of spatial relationships and the laws of physics not combine to form conclusive evidence?

On a somewhat-related note, how expensive could it be to have pucks with RFID chips in them and sensors along the goal line (and it's a lock that you see an article on that topic within the next 36 hours)? For that matter, how expensive would it be to have super slo-motion cameras like they have at so many other sporting events (is it a question of in-house versus for-television production)? Something after the freeze frame and before the puck disappears under Lundqvist's pad would have been nice.

Fighting In The NHL: A Compromise? Part Deux

Yesterday's post on fighting in the NHL brought a nearly-unprecedented amount of traffic and discussion to this little ol' blog (combine that with a link from the mighty Deadspin on the Jagr-in-drag post and traffic was like the beltway at 4:30 on a Friday afternoon in July). Reading some of the comments here and elsewhere (thanks to whomever seeded it - I like being called a moron in as many fora as possible), I wanted to clarify two apparent misconceptions:

1. I'm not for banning fighting in the NHL. That's why I wrote "the NHL needs fighting."
2. I don't think that cheap shots like the Chris Simon two-handed chop and fighting are the same thing. That's why I differentiated amongst three distinct events running the cheapshot-to-fair-fight spectrum and noted how while hockey fans can tell the difference, the mainstream media and casual fans often cannot.

The bottom line to me is that fighting is hockey's "gun control" or "abortion" or "gay marriage" - everyone's got an opinion on it, most people voice an opinion borne of passion and, to an extent, tradition and/or morality, and the vast majority of the public is somewhere in the middle on the issue. Nevertheless, the voices that you hear reverberating through media outlets, chat rooms and message boards come from the extremes - "if you take away my assault rifle, my hand gun will be next" or "keep your laws off of my body," or, in the case of fighting in hockey, you'd think it was a choice between "if you don't like fighting, go watch figure skating" or "if you want to watch fighting, go watch the UFC."

What I did was to take a stab at trying to come up with a middle ground, a compromise that maintains nearly all of the physicality of the game (and its adoring fans) while at the same time protecting players and the game's image, allowing new fans exposure to the game we all know and love.

If ever there was an issue in hockey that was playing out like something straight from Capitol Hill and political talk shows, it's this one. And just like in American politics, the noise machines at either end of the spectrum are drowning out the overwhelming majority of the interested public who occupies a sensible middle ground, a middle ground in which they can enjoy a good scrap that serves a purpose but have less fear that they're going to see someone die right before their eyes.

Fighting In The NHL: A Compromise?

By now you've no doubt seen the video of Colton Orr likely ending Todd Fedoruk's NHL career with a haymaker to the left side of his recently-reconstructed face. It was an awful moment for any hockey fan to witness, and it undoubtedly adds yet another piece of damning evidence to the "ban fighting" lobby.

Whether it's Orr on Fedoruk (a freak occurence in the middle of a clean fight), Jordin Tootoo on Stephane Robidas (a questionable punch by a player ostensibly defending himself) or Chris Simon on Ryan Hollweg (a cheap shot that had nothing at all to do with fighting), the NHL's image has taken a beating lately (no pun intended), and the mainstream commentators parrot the conventional wisdom that events like these happen because the NHL condones - even encourages - fighting.

Now, clearly if fighting were banned entirely, Todd Fedoruk would be waking up in his own bed - and not in a hospital bed - today. Then again, if fighting were banned entirely, Todd Fedoruk wouldn't have a job in the NHL. But fighting in hockey doesn't exist to keep plumbers like Fedoruk employed. Rather, the argument goes, it exists to keep skilled players alive and well and fans in the seats. I'm not going to go into a detailed explanation here of why the NHL needs fighting - read "The Code" or check out this bulleted list for some of the pros and cons of banning fighting - but I believe that there is a time and a place for pugilism in the NHL game. But when events like those referenced above happen and make it into mainstream sports or even news broadcasts, something needs to be done about the culture in the game because for most Americans, that is their primary exposure to hockey.

All of this is a rather drawn-out lead-in to my suggestion: the NHL should pass a rule whereby a) a player who gets in multiple fights over a given span of time gets suspended, and b) a player who receives a concussion in a fight and gets in another fight over a different time period gets similarly suspended. For example, if a player gets in a fight on Tuesday, he can't get in another until, say, the following Tuesday (maybe two weeks is better, but I'm not the expert) or he gets suspended for a game. The second time it happens, it's two games, and so on. If a player gets concussed in a fight, he can't get in another for a month or he gets suspended.

Think this is Draconian? The World Boxing Association mandates that any boxer who has suffered a knockout be kept out of the ring for sixty days. If that boxer suffers a knockout in his next fight or within three months of the first knockout, he's not allowed to fight for six months. In fact, a boxer can't get back into the ring under WBA regulations for at least 14 days after a fight, regardless of the result or length of the fight. And, oh yeah, boxers don't drop their padded gloves before they fight.

The specifics obviously need some ironing out, but the benefits of rules like these that I have proposed are numerous. For example, the NHL can look like they're serious about curbing violence in the sport, which will be a tremendous public relations boost at a time that it's needed. They'd get rid of some of the pointless "I'm tougher than you are" fighting that is far too common in the League (why on earth did Andrew Peters challenge Donald Brashear last night anyway?). And obviously it would protect players from some of the long-term effects of having their heads used as punching bags. At the same time, however, the League would keep the "tradition" and intimidation/enforcement aspects of fighting in the game and not alienate (too much further) the blood-thirsty neanderthals who would rather pay money to see the Jordin Tootoos of the League than the Paul Kariyas.

One problem with rules like these are that you would have games in which a player was carrying with him a fighting major and would potentially be unable to perform his role as an enforcer until he was in the clear to fight again. But all that does is add a little more thought into the equation, as the player would have to think to himself, "Did the guy I want to fight do something that's worth me taking a game or two off to redress?" Chances are that with that calculus going on, the "right" decision will be made more often than not, and unnecessary fighting will all but disappear.

Would these rules have saved Todd Fedoruk last night? Actually, if it was a two week rule, it would have. But that's not really my point, which is simply that the NHL needs to improve its image with respect to sensational violence and this is one way to do it without sacrificing fighting altogether. It's a compromise between the two sides of the issue and one that makes sense for everyone involved.

UPDATE: I've followed up this post with another that contains some clarifications for those of us whose reading comprehension skills might leave something to be desired (or, perhaps, in the event that my fingers didn't fully keep up with my brain in this post).

NHL To Reward Playoff Chokes, Punish Cinderella

Let me get this straight - the NHL has voted to rework the entry draft order so that teams that squeak into the playoffs and go on miracle runs can pick behind teams that win their divisions but fold as soon as the calendar turns to April?

The Checking Line has all of the details, and if you're curious as to how it would have played out last year, the Edmonton Oilers - with their 95 regular season points (14th in the NHL) - would have picked 29th (versus 17th under the old rules) while the Detroit Red Wings - with their 124 points (1st overall) - would have picked 26th (versus 29th under the old rules). Buffalo and Anaheim, both of whom finished behind Detroit in the regular season, would also have picked after the Wings.

No, it's not a huge difference for Detroit, but it punishes a lesser team for a good playoff run and diminishes the importance of the regular season even further - give me an 82-game season as a measure of a team's ability over a 4-to-28 game snapshot any day.

So who's brilliant idea was this?

The change, apparently spearheaded by Red Wings GM Ken Holland, gives teams with good regular-seasons that flop in early playoff rounds better spots to pick from.

Uh huh.

But really, would you expect anything different from the League that rewards failure?

UPDATE: Bob McKenzie clarifies a bit, but I don't think it changes my example - or the underlying point - above.

NHL Misses An Opportunity To Right A Wrong

According to CBC.ca, "[t]he NHL will not change to a three-point system for wins during the 2007-08 season after the league's general managers universally gave the idea the thumbs down at their annual meetings in Naples, Fla."

Brilliant. I ranted on this last year, so I'll spare you that now, but the simplest of questions remains unanswered: why are some games worth three points in the standings while others are worth only two?

Instigating Change

Eric over at Off Wing has a great post up today about the effectiveness of the current instigator rule (which, contrary to popular belief, was in place prior to the beginning of Gary Bettman's tenure as Commish).

The post is written in the context of Brendan Shanahan's outburst last night regarding the perceived reverse-star treatment that Jaromir Jagr gets from NHL referees, and contains a lot of food for thought, including a lengthy excerpt from an article by former Cap (and Harvard grad) Neil Sheehy.

But what I find somewhat ironic is that Shanny was on the rules committee (or whatever they called themselves) that actually strengthened the instigator rule after the lockout. Had the League done away with the rule at that time (i.e. if all the plumbers supposedly taking their cheap shots at poor Jaromir could be dispensed with by, say, Colton Orr without fear of an extra penalty) maybe Shanahan et. al. wouldn't have to rely on the referees to make sure Jagr had adequate space on the ice.

Update: Caps Nut has a good post following up on this issue with some interesting pre-last night quotes from Shanny. Basically, he was against obstruction penalties before he was for them. Quoth Shanny:

There is nothing in the rule book that says if one player touches another player with his stick, it's two minutes for hooking. There's nothing in the rule book that says if one player touches another player with his hand, it's two minutes for holding.... We would rather have a missed call than a phantom call.

Well, Brendan, they missed some last night. Happy? No?