According to Downey, the conversation went like this:
"We were having a few words - (Recchi) was telling me his philosophy on life, and I was telling him mine," Downey said, setting off in his unique orbit.
"It seemed to work. I think I had a better world view than he did. He was more materialistic and I had a deeper sense of what was happening. He didn't like that, with his comeback, so I gave it to him a little more and Sidney tried to defend him.
"A lot of words were used, like nullified and patriotism. I ain't gonna lie to you, I had a lot of fun out there. I haven't played in a month, and for the first couple shifts, it was like: 'Holy smoke, this is fast hockey.' "
Sidney, we all want to keep on loving you, so ditch the act. It's unbecoming of you.
Colby Armstrong on the other hand, developed the first case of Habsfearflu. He simply did not show up due to some mysterious injury. How convenient!
As soon as coach Guy Carbonneau suggested that Armstrong would surely be playing with his head up on Sunday, the Penguins forward did what he did in his fight with Souray - he wimped out.
It's likely that coach Therrien smartly removed the element of retribution from the game. He is guiding a young team in full dynasty metamorphosis, and surely doesn't relish the distraction. He's also wise enough to understand about playing into the whole mess in the magnified hockey microscope that is the city of Montreal. Having coached in Montreal, and being the first QMJHL bench boss to take his team to a Memorial Cup in twenty-five years, Therrien is nobody's fool. In his junior apprenticeship, he was in fact viewed as the gooniest of hard-ass coaches, hell bent on winning in the allies as much as on the ice. His silence and "no comment" spoke volumes on the lessons learned.
Crosby, in a sideline story, did leave behind one very classy gesture in Montreal. After having been interviewed between periods on RDS, he realized that there was something important that he wanted to say. He asked team mate Mark Recchi to relay a message on air for him before changing his mind and doing it himself during the second period intermission. Appearing right after the Recchi interview, Crosby popped in to say hello to friends and fans from the Rimouski area. A nice touch.
Much has been written on the Jekyl and Hydeness of the Canadiens of late. Which team shows up is too often being determined by the percieved calibre of the opponants. It has been discussed that lack of emotion has been at the rotting core of some very dismal showings. The heart of the team is questioned at times, leadership as well. The term "stupid penalties" enters the argument at every turn.
All are valid points, but I must open the wound that is penalty calls.
You can term it "taking stupid penalties" in one regard, but too often it is a case dumb calls being made. The Canadiens in this view are absolutely the most fouled against team when it gets down how officials have been calling their games. Look no further than last Thursday's call against Ryder and the Souray fiasco that followed. There is an obvious bias playing out in some games, with certain officials. In Saturday's game, the calls tilted in favor of the Penguins by a huge margin.
I often find that when the Habs are off their mark, these officiating inconsistancies are at the heart of it. They are duped by it into to playing a timid brand of hockey that is not theirs. They look off balance and out of sync, they stop hitting and pursuing the puck with the same grit, and the lines are all skewred for timing and become incompatible.
But lo and behold, the Canadiens are the best third period team in the league. They have registered 18 points ( 7 wins and 4 SO/OT losses ) when trailing after two periods, almost a third of their seasons total so far. What accounts for this abnormality?
Simply, it is the long standing but unwritten league policy of putting the whistles away in the third period.
If I were an NHL GM, I'd hire a full time scout or two, just to get a handle on the calling tendencies of certain officials games. A few days before the team has to deal with the evolving hybrid of make-it-up-as-they-go-alongness, a team meeting could be held to say that so and so has a habit of extremely chintzy calls in the hooking department. Such informational strategies might actually become the norm should officiating continue to be so atroscious.
2 comments:
Calling it the Souray Fiasco implies that the penalties were out of line.
Souray absolutely deserved what he got in terms of penalties. The only mystery is why Armstron didn't get a fighting major.
If the NHL truly believes the instigator penalty isn't obsolete, then they have to start coming down a little harder on the actions that begin incidents like this.
Five seconds before he hit Koivu, Armstrong knew exactly what he was going to do - the 6 or 7 strides taken are proof enough of a charge. The fact that the hit was supposedly clean at the contact point is an irrelevant argument. 5 for charging, which is in books, and possibly a game misc. for attempt to injure should have been Armstrong's.
If you see the replay, Armstrong's gloves are off first, so Souray's instigator is doubtful by actions, but obviously not by intent. Armstrong also threw punches.
The fiasco I am implying is that one team gains a 7 minute PP. I have watched hockey since 1968. I don't recal an incident of the sort being called quite like this.
The Canadiens games have been called this way all year.
Also, if I were Bob Gainey, I'd have called Ryder and Higgins into the office and ask why they simply skated away after Koivu's hit. Funny they were not on the top line on Sunday?
Post a Comment