The Montreal Cana-divers
Wow. Do the Montreal Canadiens employ Greg Louganis as an assistant coach? If Canada’s Olympic Team runs short of skilled divers to send to Beijing later this summer, the Canadiens roster is full of suitable replacements. Heck - the Canadian Olympic Diving Team could learn a thing or two from their hockey counterparts. For their first round matchup with the Bruins, the Canadiens acting skills were more Oscar-worthy then Daniel Day-Lewis in “There Will Be Blood” (horrible movie, btw, but I digress).
I looked up the “diving” rule in the NHL rulebook:Rule 52 Diving (NEW for 2005-06)
1. A minor penalty shall be imposed on a player who attempts to draw a penalty by his actions (”diving”).
2. Regardless if a minor penalty for diving is called, Hockey Operations will review game videos and assess fines to players who dive or embellish a fall or a reaction, or who feign injury. (See also Rule 33A — Supplementary Discipline.)
3. The first such incident will result in a warning letter being sent to the player, the second such incident will result in a $1,000 fine, the third such incident will result in a $2,000 fine and the fourth such incident will result in a one-game suspension. (See also Rule 33A — Supplementary Discipline.)
Now, I’ll give the referees credit: They did (eventually) call some diving penalties (though they could’ve called far more). My issue is not with the fact that they could’ve called more diving penalties though. My issue is that every diving call they made was in conjunction with a Bruins penalty.
To wit: No diving penalties called in Games 1-4, nor in Game 7 (although the diving was ever-present, most notably in OT of Game 2 on the play where Jeremy Reich was called for tripping on Mark Spitz… er, Markov). But…
Game Five - first period (8:34 MTL S. Kostitsyn-Diving, 8:34 BOS Sturm-Interference); second period (9:27 MTL Komisarek-Diving, 9:27 BOS Sturm-Interference)
Game Six - first period (9:30 MTL Begin-Diving, 9:30 BOS Kessel-Slashing); second period (18:52 MTL A. Kostitsyn-Diving, 18:52 BOS Axelsson-Interference)
I don’t know whether the refs reviewed tape of Games 1 thru 4, or the Bruins coaches got their protestations heard, but the refs finally started calling diving in Games 5 & 6 as noted above (and predictably ignored it again in Game 7, but that’s another rant for another day). But every time they called diving on the Canadiens, they also called the Bruins for a minor penalty (i.e. apparently the Cana-divers were *successful* at “trying to draw a penalty”… which they were then “penalized” for so doing. Do you follow?).
I understand that, in theory, there could be a penalty and a dive committed on the same play (i.e. the penalty is committed, but also the aggrieved party overdoes it to try and ensure the call) - but in practice, don’t ya think the refs would call one or the other (or neither)… as opposed to *both*? If the Bruin commits a penalty and the Canadien overdoes it, just call the penalty and tell the Canadiens to cool it. If the Bruin barely touches the Canadien and the Canadien makes like an extra on “The A-Team”, then just call the diving penalty and be done with it. (Did you ever notice that munitions of all sorts were going off in that show, and people are flying left in right, falling building, being hurled from exploding cars… yet noboby every actually got hurt? So how “real” were the explosions, et al, really? About as “real” as Jeremy Reich’s Game 2 OT “trip”… but I digress…)
But what exactly is the point of calling the Bruins penalty *and* the Canadiens diving? In practice, either one player commits a penalty or the other player tries to draw a penalty - not both. And I’ve read the simple rule several times… what interpretation leads one to believe that the ref should send *both* guys off when a dive takes place?
This is not sour grapes about the Bruins losing the series, or any individual game. Hey - the Canadiens were a (far) better team than the Bruins, and the series shouldn’t have even gone seven (given the vast talent disparity). Indeed, the Bruins won both Game 5 and Game 6, where the “matching” penalties were all called.
I jush wish the refs would pick a freakin’ lane rather than trying to straddle the freakin’ line when it comes to NHL Rule 52: Diving. Is that too much to ask?
April 25th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Oops… my bad… er, my Bluto. I see where I was loose and fast with some historical facts in my ranting fervor to ramble on in an effort to (eventually) make a point.
We all recall Sgt-at-Arms Blutarsky imploring his brethren to not give up, but rather to fight back in the face of seemingly insurmountable obstacles:
“Was it… was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?! Hell, no!!”
“Germans?”
“Forget it… he’s rollin’.”
Bluto correctly identified a WWII enemy (of the US), but picked the *wrong* one when discussing the attack on Pearl Harbor (as we all know from a recent episode of “Are You Smarter Than a Fifth-Grader?”… well, not really - but it seems like something that would be on that show, don’t ya think?).
Likewise, I correctly identified Mark Spitz as an Olympic water sportsman, but picked the *wrong* sport. I was searching for a well-known diver to compare to Markov… and went with a well-known swimmer instead.
I’m confident you all noticed that, but responded much like Otter and Boone:
“… for tripping on Mark Spitz [implied diver]… er, Markov).”
“Mark Spitz?”
“Forget it, he’s rollin’.”
April 26th, 2008 at 7:45 am
Funny, I had that exact reaction when I read the Spitz reference…forget it, he’s ranting.
I didn’t see as much of the series as I would have liked, but I couldn’t agree more on the diving interpretation. The unwritten rule of only calling diving to eliminate a PP for the infraction-committing party clearly is not working (i.e. losing a PP is obviously not stopping the diving). They need to change to rule to say that if you dive you eliminate the original infraction, and by rule you are the only one called (unless maybe on slashes/high sticks and the like). They have done a great job for the most part of instituting the new rules in such a way that keeps the game moving, and emphasises speed and skill. They need to carry it over to the diving rule.
As for the rest of the series, I have completely lost respect for the Canadiens and their fans. I used to have the utmost respect for them as a franchise (as we’ve covered off in the past, totally different sense of “rival” for the Bruins than the Yankees for the Red Sox), but what a bunch of whining, diving pussies the team is, and don’t even get me started on the fans. You could literally hear the crowd collectively crying about calls from start to finish in every game at the Forum (at least the parts that I saw).
And the riots…um, yeah, that’s smart.
That said, I have to root against the Flyers in the second round, simply for the fact that had the Flyers not intentionally injured three Bruins this year, the Bruins would have beated the Habs.
April 26th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Or perhaps if Julien had recognized that holding the Habs to 1 or 2 goals is great - but you still have to oustcore them to win i.e. bench Kessel for one game to make a point if he’s not playing good two-way hockey, but the Bruins simply do not have the offensive weapons at their disposal to leave arguably their purest offensive weapon (currently available) off the ice. Now if they had a healthy Bergeron and Kessel the whole series? Who knows.
But that said, can we agree the Canadiens were *clearly* the more talented team and this series should not have gone more than five games? I’m not asking for any moral victories here - just noting that I think its a bit disingenuous to play the woulda/coulda/shoulda game with this series. The Bruins were lucky to win three games in this series, never mind somehow getting the four wins necessary to advance.
April 27th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Absolutely. There’s a reason it was a 1 v. 8 matchup. The Habs are the much better team…on paper.
Couldn’t agree more on Kessel. Not sure how you leave him out for three games. One…fine. Two…maybe. Three, when you can’t put the puck in the net. Big mistake.
April 27th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
“On paper”… and in reality. They did win *all* eight games against the Bruins during the regular season. And didn’t they win the last three of last season… then add in the first two of this series - that’s 13 in a row. On paper, on ice, in the parking lot, down in Australia on the beach… the Habs are the much better team, period.
I think Julien and his team do deserve some kudos for forcing a Game Seven, especially after being down 3-1 and heading back to Montreal for Game 5. But grit and effort only carry you so far when there’s such a large talent gap. If the Bruins were just a little less talented than the Habs, they likely would’ve taken the series… but they are *far* less talented than the Habs - that’s the facts, Jack.