As much as I love my Vancouver Canucks, the actions and words of some Canucks fans often leave my scratching my head.

Unless you’re living under a rock, you’ve heard all about the disallowed Daniel Sedin goal from the third game of the Canucks vs. Los Angeles Kings playoff series. Sedin’s goal was ruled to be deliberately kicked in and almost everyone in Canucksville went absolutely nuts over the call from Toronto.

Twitter lit up with all sorts of conspiracy theories, most of which involved Mike Murphy’s “explanation” after the game to Ron MacLean, Mike Milbury and Kelly Hrudey about the call. Of course, Murphy is the NHL’s director of hockey operations and he used to play and coach in Los Angeles. Let the theories begin.

Canucks fans have long thought their team to be victims in a National Hockey League that appears to slant towards the Eastern Conference, but this notion of favouritism seeps into every single game the Canucks play in. There’s always somebody else to blame, the Canucks always get screwed, etc.

The fact of the matter is that the Canucks lost the game and the disallowed goal was the least of their worries. If anything, the disallowed goal proved itself to be a distraction. Toronto, Bettman, Murphy, and the video review process had nothing to do with the Canucks loss to the Los Angeles Kings.

That’s not to say that the process is clear-cut or that the rules for disallowed goals are clear, of course.

Rule 78 in the NHL rulebook covers goals and assists, with Rule 78.5 digging in to disallowed goals. There are a number of subheads, as you might expect, but the subhead that is pertinent here is the first one, stating that goals should be disallowed for the following reason(s): “(i) When the puck has been directed, batted or thrown into the net by an attacking player other than with a stick.”

As TSN’s Bob McKenzie rightly points out, it used to be that the “distinct kicking motion” served as a sort of “smoking gun.” As I watched Twitter light up last night, the distinct kicking motion was certainly on everyone’s minds. But, going back to McKenzie, it isn’t so much that there wasn’t a motion that counts. It’s that the goal was “propelled” into the net or, as the rule states, “directed.”

Says McKenzie: “Because he’s in motion toward the net when the puck hits his skate, he ‘propels’ it into the net. Based on the NHL rule wording, it’s no goal.”

And at the end of the day, the only real rule that matters pertaining to disallowed goals is: “(xiii) Any goal scored, other than as covered by the official rules, shall not be allowed.”

I’ve stated here before, much to the chagrin of hockey purists, that I believe any goal “directed” or “batted” in to the net should count - even if it is off the skate. My caveat would be that the skate must be on the ground, thus to cover safety issues.

As anyone can see, this is a complicated issue and the NHL rules don’t exactly serve to clarify. The Sedin goal was propelled into the net by the league’s thorny definition, however, and Canucks fans need to move along. There’s no grand conspiracy from the top, the officials aren’t out to get Vancouver, and Mike Murphy isn’t secretly slanting the series towards the Kings unless he paid the Canucks to have an awful PK and to lapse in coverage in their own end.

Face it, Vancouver has nobody to blame but themselves for where they are in the series. But they’re only down one game and the series looks to be in its early stages, so it’s time to suit up and shut up. There’s a game to play.

Posted by Jordan Richardson.

Attention: League GMs, NHL Competition Committee, players, media, and anyone else that has influence in the NHL. Consider this blog post an e-memo to the NHL containing insightful rule suggestions that should be seriously considered.

When I say “seriously considered”, I’m not talking about silly rules involving trapezoids. These are concrete recommendations that WILL make the game even better and more exciting than it is now!

In addition to my top 10 new rules found below, I’d like other fans to submit their ideas. To help spur on this discussion, we’re going to be running a little contest here. Submit a new NHL rule idea and you could win a pair of tickets to a men’s Olympic hockey game! All eligible entries must be unique - Variations of ideas that have already been submitted are welcome but are NOT eligible to win. There will be multiple winners as voted on by your team here at HockeyDraft.ca. Good luck and have fun!

Now without further adieu, here are my Top 10 NHL Rule Recommendations :

1. If two teams are tied for the final playoff spot (8th in the conference) at the end of the regular season, they will square off in a 1 game playoff-like elimination to determine who makes the post-season. How exciting would that be? If four teams are tied for the final spot, then there will be two one-game eliminators played. If there is an odd number, then the leading team (according to the currently rules) will get a bye. I also propose that these elimination games be played at a neutral, non-NHL city (such as Winnipeg or Victoria). This would be a treat for fans of non-NHL cities.

2. During a delayed penalty, currently the play stops when the penalized team gains possession. This is a gray area as sometimes a team touches the puck and the play is called while other times it’s not. I propose changing the rule so that the play is not called until the penalized team gets the puck past the opposition’s icing line. This will force the team getting the penalty to really gain possession and fire it down to stop the play.

3. If a player clears the puck directly over the boards in the defensive zone, instead of a 2-minute penalty for delay of game, their team will instead lose their timeout (which is kind of like a delay to the game). If the team has already used/lost their timeout, then it is a 2-minute penalty.

4. All goals off the skate or deliberately kicked count as a legal goal. Why not?! You are allowed to score goals with your head in soccer… and those are usually the most beautiful goals too! Allowing goals to be scored by kicking it in would eliminate any gray area and also allow for some pretty slick plays.

5. I don’t think having 3 shooters in a shootout is enough. I’d like to see it increased to 5. Also, I think it would be fun to see new players on a team shoot rather than the typical group. Therefore a player can’t shoot if they took a shot in the team’s previous shootout. This would add some coaching strategy as well.

6. Players may not like this next rule change as it involves more travel. I think that we should increase the number of games against teams outside of your division and reduce the number of games against teams inside your division. Currently, you play 6 games against teams in your division, 4 games against teams in your conference but outside of your division, and 1 game against teams from the other conference (and three of those teams you play twice). I’d prefer to see teams play 5 divisional games, 3 intra-conference games and 2 against teams outside your conference. This will allow fans to see guys like Ovie and Sid the Kid more often in the West. This will also reduce the NHL schedule down to 80 games per team - a good round number.

7. If a goal is shot in right when the net is being nudged off, and the net being dislodged had no impact on the goal being scored (in the opinion of the ref), then the goal should stand. There are so many times when a goal has been waived off because the net slightly lifted off its moorings even though this movement didn’t play a factor in the goal.

8. Get rid of the blood = 4 minute penalty rule. The fact of the matter is some people bleed easier than others. Next thing you know guys will be hiding razor blades to cut themselves like in WWE (ok, maybe that’s a stretch and I probably shouldn’t be putting ideas into Avery’s head)… but I think a double minor should be up to the ref, not the skin.

9. I’ve seen a few occasions in which a player takes a penalty in the dying seconds of overtime, with no subsequent consequence, because the game is going into a shootout. Currently, you can slash, trip or do anything (other than something that would warrant a suspension) without really paying the consequences within that game. I think it would make more sense that if you took a penalty in overtime, and there is less time left on the clock than in your penalty, you should not be allowed to take a penalty shot (because technically, you’d still be in the penalty box!).

10. The kid inside me requests this next rule change. Bring back the octopus in Detroit! Bring back the rats in Florida! I like these traditions – they add some fun to the game. I can understand why these types of actions can be considered dangerous, but I’m sure teams can develop processes / quick clean up procedures in order to minimize any risks. Fining or awarding delay of game penalties doesn’t really make sense. Montreal and Toronto fans are everywhere – they can walk into another city and cause delay of game penalties to the home team… I’m not sure if it has happened, but I’m sure it could! I think the NHL can “control” it and have 5 or so charity nights per team where they are sold harmless things to throw on the ice. All proceeds from these “rats” or “whales” or whatever you’d like go to the team’s official charity.

… and there you have it! If you like these or any of the submitted comments, digg and tweet away! We need all the exposure we can get. Suggest your own rule idea now and you can win men’s Olympic hockey tickets! Good luck and have fun!

We probably shouldn’t be all that surprised that Don Cherry would spend time on his intermission break show on CBC to chastise someone for beating up on the Toronto Maple Leafs. We probably also shouldn’t be surprised that he went after the Washington Capitals and Bruce Boudreau for “running up the score” against his beloved Leafs on Friday night’s contest.

The Capitals, led by Alex Ovechkin’s season-high five points, felled the Leafs by a final score of 6-1. For Cherry, however, it was all a sign of bad sportsmanship. Putting Ovie and Mike Green out on the power play was just too much for him to handle.

Cherry has gone after teams for “running up the score” before. Perhaps his most famous tirade came when he attacked the Canadian women’s team in 2006 during the Olympics. Cherry complained that the “Europeans” who run the Olympics would drop hockey because one country dominated too much.

The women didn’t take too kindly to Cherry’s comments, of course. Even Cassie Campbell, who now works for the CBC, wasn’t too keen on embracing his advice on not scoring too many goals.

Cherry has made no secret about his dislike of Europeans and some of the NHL’s flashier players. This goes hand in hand with his dislike of “running up the score,” as he considers that to be the antithesis of Canada’s “humble” attitude. In other words we’re to dominate physically and throw hits like nobody else while bragging about our greatness at the game, but we aren’t to actually score too much and prove that dominance within the rules of the game.

Cherry’s dislike of Ovechkin probably factored heavily into his comments on Saturday night. It’s no secret that he’s not a big fan of the flashy winger, but when does that dislike tarnish his reputation as an analyst of the game.

Theo Fleury deliberated this point in March of 2009 when he lambasted Cherry in the Calgary Herald. “The NHL wants more scoring. Does Don Cherry want to sell the game? No, it’s all about bashing the European players,” Fleury said. “I thought the object of the game was that the team that scores the most goals wins. I guess Don didn’t score too many goals in his day, so he has never experienced the feeling. Maybe he’s jealous.”

The Leafs didn’t appear to be crying about the Capitals’ “running up the score” in their post-game comments, either, as they are professionals who know that being blown out in embarrassing fashion is sometimes a part of the game.

“Ovechkin makes things happen,” said Leafs coach Ron Wilson. “If you play the game in a deer-in-the-headlights kind of mode against him, you’re probably going to get run over.”

“We gave him too much time and too much space,” said Jamal Mayers. “He’s one of the most dominant players in the league and if you give him that much time, he’s going to make a play, and we made him look good.”

When will Don Cherry accept that the nature of hockey has changed since he was a relatively unsuccessful player and a pretty mediocre coach? While there’s no questioning his passion for the game, one has to wonder if his zeal is as inclusive as it could be to hockey’s changing tide. Like stale Republicans in the United States, Cherry’s desire to hide behind an outmoded branch of hockey is starting to get embarrassing.

And more critics, like Fleury, are coming out of the woodwork. Canada’s hockey fans and players used to unite behind Cherry, but that, like the game itself, is undergoing the natural buckles of change.

While his criticism of the concept of “running up the score” has its merits in his promotion of humility, it seems to me that his preaching of the ideology of humbleness while wearing an obnoxious suit and advocating a violent, Wild West-ish code of “ethics” in hockey with a booming voice and an inability to listen to his “co-star” is starting to ring a little hollow.

There is a place in hockey for humility, to be sure. But Don Cherry simply doesn’t know where that place is anymore.

Posted by Jordan Richardson.

Ask Steve Sarty, the athletics director of Saint Mary’s University in Halifax, and he’ll tell you that Mike Danton is fitting in as well any any student adjusting to academic life. Attending sociology lectures and taking classes just like anyone else, Danton is in the process of piecing his life back together.

The 29-year-old’s story, however, is anything but normal. His relationship with David Frost well-documented and his five years spent in an American jail for conspiring to murder Frost (or his own father, depending on the narrative you subscribe to), Danton’s story is disturbing to say the least.

And now, on top of it all, Danton is ready to skate again and join the Saint Mary’s Huskies.

To say that opinion is divided on this issue would be an understatement. Comments on The Hockey News pertaining to this issue lean on politics, with some calling out the “liberal scum” who applaud Danton’s return to the ice and others cheerleading him all the way back to the National Hockey League.

Toronto Star writer David Cox suggests that the notion of allowing Danton the chance to return to hockey is “embarrassing.”

Danton hasn’t been on the ice in five and a half years, while his academic appearance at Saint Mary’s doesn’t appear to be ruffling any feathers. Even Cox applauded his return to his studies, charting it as a significant way to get back into society.

“He’s not an imposing figure. Hockey has created a controversy, but the hockey is a secondary thing. He wants to attend university,” said Sarty. “He has an affiliation and desire to play hockey, yes, and being a member of a team should be part of his reintegration.”

One of the leading arguments Cox brings to justify his case against Danton’s second chance is that of age and NHL experience, but Sarty’s comments seem to negate this line of attack. “Some disagree with it (the difference in age between varsity hockey players and typical freshmen) but we didn’t invent the process. The CIS rules have no age limit on hockey players. I know of other schools that have ex-pros on the roster,” he said.

So with no age limit on hockey players in the CIS (Canadian Interuniversity Sport) guidelines, Cox’s argument really has no legs in this regard. This is especially reinforced in light of the fact that the senior Horse Lake Thunder hockey club recruited Theo Fleury and Gino Odjick to give their club a chance at contention only a few years ago.

What about the idea that Danton’s arrival on the Huskies would taint the integrity of the club? After all, few people or organizations want to be affiliated with a convicted criminal.

Granted this is a tougher one to justify, as people are going to have their opinions on this sort of thing regardless of the facts. It essentially comes down to whether or not there’s a strong enough belief in second chances. Danton’s life has not been easy; he was taken advantage of by a cruel manipulator from the opening moments of his career and was essentially brainwashed.

While Danton holds responsibility for his crimes, he also served his time and paid his debt to society. Isn’t it time to let him heal properly? Couldn’t allowing Danton back on the ice serve to do more good than harm? Wouldn’t it be possible for a return to hockey to help heal some of Danton’s family wounds?

Danton is still on parole and it will be another couple of weeks before he’ll be on the ice. He won’t be interviewed individually due to an order from Corrections Canada, but his support system will be evaluated before he can make any sort of return to the game he loves so much.

With Corrections Canada watching him like a hawk and a new, valuable, moral support system in place, I think it’s fair to say that Danton’s second chance is off on good footing. In my humble opinion, the young man deserves a chance to play hockey. Other players in similar situations would have ditched the sport in light of the obstacles they’d face, but Danton’s strongest desire has always been to lace the skates.

As a society, we ought to admire that kind of dedication - even in the most unlikely or unconventional of places.

Posted by Jordan “Liberal Scum” Richardson.

I always grab my kids and stick them in front of the TV when something spectacular is about to happen in sports so that some day they can tell their kids “I watched Wayne Gretzky play his last game” or “I watched Tiger beat Jack’s major championship record”. I know that last one hasn’t happened yet, but you can bet that my entire family will be watching when it does. I’ve always thought that we live in a very exciting time for sports figures. Orr, Favre, Jordan, Tiger, Gretzky…

If you think about it, it’s really quite incredible.

As a result, I have always thought there were a handful of records in the NHL that I assumed would never be challenged. Gretzky’s 92 goal season or 215 point season, Selanne’s most goals as a rookie with 76, a little known goalie named Sam LoPresti’s record of stopping 80 shots in one game. Yes, it was only 3 periods (against the Bruins, of course) and no, he didn’t play for Toronto…it was Chicago, actually. The other big record that I never thought I would see fall is Terry Sawchuk’s 103 career shutouts, and yet Martin Brodeur is set to break it over the course of the next few weeks or months.

When I first heard how close he was, I have to admit that I was skeptical about the comparison. You know, I thought Sawchuk had played far fewer games than Brodeur…actually only 35 to date. That’s not a very big gap, so I compared the rest of the stats trying to find where Brodeur would fall short and Sawchuk would be far and away, the better goaltender. Feeling somewhat enlightened, let me share with you my findings;

Seasons Played – Brodeur 17/ Sawchuk 21
Minutes Played – Brodeur 59,448 min/ Sawchuk 57,194 min
Goals Against Average – Brodeur 2.21/ Sawchuk 2.51
Wins – Brodeur 561/ Sawchuk 447

Some other key differences are obviously, the size of the pads in today’s game. In comparison, the goalies that play today would look more like lacrosse goalies if put beside goalies of the 60’s (not to mention Sawchuk played without a mask until the 1962/63 season with just 8 seasons remaining in his career). In Brodeur’s defense, today’s players are bigger, faster and shoot harder. The game is quite different now in some aspects.

Sawchuk was taken from us too early, and there will always be a little bit of mystery surrounding his death. In the summer of 1970, an alcohol induced wrestling match with teammate Ron Stewart ended up in Sawchuk being rushed to a hospital. His gallbladder was removed and he also had a lacerated liver. Unable to recover, the nurse said “His heart just stopped”.

The HHoF’s 3 year waiting period was waived for him and he was inducted in 1971, which puts him exceptional company. The waiting period was waived for only ten players deemed exceptionally notable: Dit Clapper (1947), Maurice Richard (1961), Ted Lindsay (1966), Red Kelly (1969), Terry Sawchuk (1971), Jean Beliveau (1972), Gordie Howe (1972), Bobby Orr (1979), Mario Lemieux (1997) and Wayne Gretzky (1999).

It’s always difficult to compare players from different eras, but Brodeur is as close a comparison to Sawchuk that we will likely see in our generation.
We are indeed, very fortunate to be witness to some incredible athletes in sports history.

An emotional Gordie Howe was once quoted as saying this;

“The Uke (Sawchuk) was the best goalie I ever saw, everything that a goalie should be!”

He could say the same for Brodeur.

Posted By Pat Lynch

When you think of Theo Fleury, what comes to mind? It’s probably one of two images;

1. Theo Fleury sliding across the ice in Calgary on his knees after scoring a big playoff goal, waiving his arms…the little guy with the big heart!
2. Theo Fleury arguing emphatically with a coach or referee, in either a Rangers or Blackhawks uniform…the loose cannon, wondering what antics we will witness next (no, not Sean Avery…we’re talking about Theo Fleury).

…whichever image you just saw in your head, you can’t argue that he put up some very good numbers over what some would call a tarnished career.

So is Theoren Fleury worthy of being inducted into our sacred Hockey Hall of Fame? Let’s take a closer look at some of his numbers in comparison to some other Hall of Fame players.

Fleury played 1084 games totaling 455 (53rd all time) goals and 633 assists (64th all time) for 1088 points (56 all time). His points per game were 1.004 which puts him at 49th career all time… not exactly a slouch. If based on points per game, certainly better than some other Hall members (forwards). Cam Neely (the epitome of power forwards…respectfully), Glenn Anderson (although he has more cups), Joe Mullen, Maurice Richard, Bill Cowley, Jean Ratelle, Jaques Lemaire, Frank Mahovlich, Lanny McDonald…shall I continue? There are many more.

You could argue that many of these players brought more than simply “numbers” with their game, but you could also argue that Fleury played with one of the biggest hearts we ever witnessed.

Continuing with some other facts about his career;
• He played in 7 all-star games
• Was a 50 goal scorer in 90-91 (51)
• Was a 40 goal scorer 4 times in his career
• 39th all time in game winning goals (67)
• Had 35 career short handed goals (9th all time)

Oh yeah, and he was only 5 foot 6, 182 pounds!

Now we come to the issue of how he left the NHL after his brief stint in Chicago. Yes, he was unstable. Some might even call him a detriment to the league, an embarrassment or a liability. I can’t argue with some of those viewpoints, but knowing what we do now about his past, about the anguish he went through, can’t we call it a wash for his behavior we were witness to? I think it’s the least we could do!

Fleury hasn’t been the only player with substance abuse issues over his career (Fuhr…Hall of Fame member) and he made amends with the NHL and retired on good terms. He may not have been the greatest ambassador for the game toward the end, but should we let that ruin a stellar career? A career that gives hope to the little guy, especially in today’s NHL, where you can thrive even if you’re small in stature?

In my opinion, let the numbers speak for themselves. Fleury was a spirited hockey player. A blue collar, hard working player that came to work with his metal lunch box and left filthy from his efforts. Nobody questioned his work ethic and he succeeded in spite of everyone telling him that he was too small for the big game.

…I will always see image number 1

Posted By Pat Lynch

It’s clear where the interested party stands on whether or not hockey can be successful in Phoenix, Arizona.

The National Hockey League and its interested parties suggest that hockey can be successful there and, in all probability, would make the same suggestion for any locale in the United States or elsewhere. Jerry Moyes, the “accidental owner” of the Phoenix Coyotes, disagrees and does not see success for the game of hockey in Arizona regardless of whether or not the team located there wins.

That’s why Moyes was more than happy to jump on the offer from RIM co-chief exec Jim Balsillie with the proposition to move the team to Arizona. The matter is being decided in court.

But does Jerry Moyes have a point? Can hockey succeed in a market like Arizona? Some argue that a winning team would sell more tickets and that the continued failure of the Coyotes has led to dwindling fan support and attendance. The NHL certainly sees things that way.

Moyes has a different side of the story, though. “Let me stress that all who have objectively looked at this issue recognize that our financial problems result primarily from the structure of our agreements and not the management of the team,” Moyes said. “Even a winning team would not stop us from losing money unless we received some concessions.”

Moyes added that those concessions were not available from Glendale and thinks that the NHL’s path to extract concessions from preferred buyers is wrong in that it purposefully blocks the Balsillie bid for ownership.

“I don’t think it’s reasonable for the city or the NHL to go to the next person with deep pockets and give that person a deal they would not give me and the investors I sought to attract,” Moyes wrote in a letter to the Arizona Republic.

It is no secret that the NHL and Gary Bettman have sought to force hockey teams into markets that would otherwise make no sense. The two Florida teams come to mind, naturally. Other viable hockey markets have been left hanging in Bettman’s thirst for the dollar and for league revenue, which on its face looks like a solid business move. But what Bettman and Co. don’t tend to consider is the longevity issue of a franchise. Once the honeymoon is over, attendance has naturally dwindled and the team suffers.

Posted by Jordan Richardson.

I thought I’d get the ball rolling by opening some discussion about the best agitator in the history of the National Hockey League.

As I prepared this article - yes, I actually do prepare sometimes - I re-watched what Matthew Barnaby said about being an effective agitator in the NHL. He offers three key rules, which are as follows:

1. Get in their faces…consistently: Barnaby talks about making an impact and ensuring that the other players notice the agitator’s presence on the ice. It would seem to me that the biggest failing of an NHL agitator, especially one working at an elite level, would be not being noticed by his opponents. This speaks to physical proximity, too. An agitator should be invading the personal space of his opponent.

In using an example in which Barnaby pestered Martin Brodeur, the agitator notes that he wants Brodeur to be thinking about him and not the scorers. Agitating is a mental game more than it is a physical one. It isn’t about dropping the gloves, necessarily, but more about goading an opponent.

2. Talk trash…ad nauseam: The idea here is to keep chirping and nattering at the opponent. Don’t stop talking, keep the lips moving, and keep stirring the pot. A good agitator knows how to push the right buttons, verbally, and run the opponent into the ground on a mental level. The goal is to create distraction from what’s going on within the context of the hockey game.

The idea with trash talking is to plant a seed and to disturb the concentration of the opponent. A good agitator will know no limits and will generally say some very nasty things to get at his opponent.

3. Play with discipline…all the time: This speaks to not defeating the purpose of being an agitator. The idea here is to not take the penalty personally but rather tempt or goad the opponent into breaking concentration and winding up in the Sin Bin. A good agitator will walk a fine line between getting called himself and getting his opponent called.

Being an agitator is about wanting the other team to take penalties to allow for power play opportunities. It sets up offensive opportunities, primarily, and can be an integral component to a successful team’s arsenal.

So with those three points in mind, how do we determine a good agitator and who is the best agitator in the league’s history? Of course, his efficacy as an agitator has to come into play. We don’t necessarily want to look at a player with monstrous penalty minutes, nor do we necessarily want to look at a player with countless fighting majors. An agitator isn’t necessarily an enforcer.

A few of the more obvious nominees are:

- Claude Lemieux
- Bobby Clarke
- Pat Verbeek
- Matthew Barnaby
- Sean Avery
- Tiger Williams
- Esa Tikkanen
- Ken Linseman
- Ian Laperriere
- Dale Hunter

And so forth. Feel free to supply some of your own names. I’m sure I’ve missed several possibilities.

I’m going to try to organize some sort of poll, whether it can be done with a form or just by signing a name remains to be seen, but for now I just want to open up the discussion. As names are added in the comments section below, I’ll add them to the list. I’ll then make a case for my own personal top agitator, as well as a few others, throughout the next week or two. We’ll close with an unofficial vote and determine who we think the best agitator in the history of the NHL is.

If this works out well enough, I’ll start moving to other topics as the series proceeds.

Posted by Jordan Richardson.

Not for nothing and not to keep beating a dead horse here - okay, so I enjoy it - but Alex the Great has addressed his infamous “celebration” following his 50th goal.

Said Ovechkin: “If you win the lottery - a million dollars - you go to the bar and drink a lot. I scored 50 goals and I just celebrated.”

Hockey panelists, fans, insiders, outsiders, and others have been all up in Ovie’s grill ever since the celebration in which he fanned the flames on his hockey stick. Some love his exuberance, others wish he’d stop “hot dogging,” others think it’s great for the game, and some think he a classless bum. Whatever your opinion on the celebration and on Alex Ovechkin, one has to think that the conversation and the activity is good for a game that so often struggles to gather attention outside of its normal fan base.

“It’s good for our league, it’s good for our fans,” Ovechkin said. “Some players are just like robots. They score goals and it’s like OK, no emotion, nothing, they basically go OK. You have to show emotion if you’re an emotional guy - show it. You don’t have to think about if somebody doesn’t like it. I don’t care about it if somebody (doesn’t) like it. I play myself, I enjoy my life, I’ve enjoyed my whole career. If somebody (doesn’t) like it, don’t watch my game, don’t watch what I’m doing on the ice.”

Ovechkin’s genuine outpouring of emotion after each goal he scores has become the stuff of legends. The standard hockey player response to a goal is relatively subdued, consisting of an embrace or two and a round of high fives with teammates. Ovie has become known for crashing against the glass, generate cheers from the fans, and even jump on his teammates.

Don Cherry has famously trounced Ovechkin for his displays of emotion, while wearing the flashiest, gaudiest suits known to man (the irony of this was certainly not lost on many of regular readers here). And Tampa Bay coach Rick Tocchet noted that Alex “went down a notch” in his books after the celebration. While I had planned an joke or two about Tocchet’s “books,” I’ve been chastised here before for being classless and I’d like to think I’m ever-so-slightly above making light of his gambling problems and Janet Jones.

But I digress…

Others were more supportive of Ovechkin and his actions, like Montreal Canadiens enforcer Georges Laraque, for instance. “I thought it was awesome,” Laraque said this week. “He’s the best player in the world, the most entertaining player the NHL ever had and it’s not like it was his 20th goal, it was his 50th goal.”

Forgive me, but exactly f’n right.

Caps coach Bruce Boudreau also offered his own opinion, which I think sums up the whole fracas quite nicely: “He has all these celebrations that no team worries about. But when it was something out of the ordinary, somebody might get upset about it even though his thought process wasn’t, ‘I’m doing this to show you up.’ It was, ‘I’m doing this to celebrate my 50th goal.’ I hope we put that (issue) to bed. There was no animosity toward anybody. It was just him being a really emotional, energetic young man.”

And with those wise words, I truly hope we can put this issue to bed and get on with the business of enjoying the greatest sport in the world.

Posted by Jordan Richardson.

It’s no secret that the CBC has a hard-on for Sidney Crosby and wants to ensure that there is one youthful face of the National Hockey League. It is seemingly important that the face of the NHL isn’t Alex Ovechkin, who recently scored his 50th goal of the season and drew a bit of criticism from the obvious places.

Stoking the fires of criticism is something I respect and it’s something I go out of my way to do. I think any responsible journalist wants to examine issues fairly and wants to know why things are the way they are. Any responsible, successful individual in the business of blogging, writing, talking on television or the radio, and so forth should make it his or her job to provoke discussion and attention to the issue he or she is addressing. Anything less than that is a mammoth failure.

And so it is surely the job of the CBC, its journalists, and its website to continue down the path of exploring controversy and shedding light on where it sprouts from. Individuals outlive their usefulness when they stop listening to other voices and begin proclaiming their own as worthy of deification (hint: Don Cherry).

It’s not surprising to see the CBC stoking the fires with a poll on their website that will doubtlessly be considered on the air this Saturday on Hockey Night in Canada. The poll, available for examination on CBC’s site, asks the question “Did Ovechkin Go Overboard?” The question pertains to Ovechkin’s celebration - yes, his CELEBRATION - after scoring his 50th.

There are four options, as follows (I’ve also included the results at press time):

I enjoyed it. It’s just what the games need to gain more attention. 19% (522 votes)

People in hockey need to lighten up and stop taking things so seriously. 43% (1202 votes)

As you can see, 43% of voters agree with the notion that “people in hockey” need to lighten up. This notion is becoming increasingly common, with pressure on Ovie and other players in the game coming from the Old Guard to can their personalities and step in line with the good ol’ boys. But every sport experiences transitional periods and I would guess that the NHL is in the midst of one now. We are witnessing a changing of the guard and I, for one, am damned exciting about it.

The poll demonstrates 62% of respondents placing their votes to the opposite or near-opposite end of the idea that Ovechkin went “overboard.” One wonders if a poll asking whether Tiger Williams “went overboard” with his famous celebration would net similar results. That 38% of poll respondents suggested that Ovie was a “bad example to kids” or that his celebration had no place in the game urges the obvious question as to if it would have mattered had he been a Canadian player.

All good questions, all designed to provoke possibilities and discussion. Are we in the middle of a changing of the guard in hockey? Should we be? Is there a potential for reconciliation between traditionalists and new blood or is it a lost cause? Hell, should there be limits on celebrations? Do we need them; is the situation actually that pervasive?

Posted by Jordan Richardson.