HOCKEY RUINED BY TOO MANY BLOCKED SHOTS (by anyone other than the goalie)

The annual Washington Capitals playoff disappointment has drawn the accustomed debate over how, and how much the team and/or their front office ought to be shaken up.


One recurrent complaint is that the team’s freewheeling, aggressive offensive style of play, which is rather effective in the regular season, fails in the playoffs because the opposing defenses play harder.



Rather than accept this compatibility problem, it’s possible to take a more aggressive strategy. The Capitals should push to have the National Hockey rules modified, or clarified, to address the tactics other teams are using on defense. Theses tactics include sprawling in front of shooters to block the shot.



The risk vs. potential payout ratio for this behavior is too high for defenders during most regular season contests. But with so much at stake in the Stanley Cup playoffs, it’s like you’ve got multiple goalies out there.  Imagine if during the Major league Baseball Playoffs and World Series, the position players all started pitching from various locations--it would be pure chaos.  Extreme defense trumps a good offense.


That’s an angle the Capitals--and anybody who really appreciates the aesthetics of good sport--could take in arguing their point. Surely the official rules of hockey forbid teams from having more than one goaltender on the ice at anytime. These players who are using their bodies as human shields are de facto part-time goalies.


Do soccer rules permit any player other than the goalkeeper to use their hands to deflect shots on-goal? Of course not! It’s time for hockey officials to review the rulebook and take some appropriate action. A player who goes to the ground of his own accord so as to block a potential shot on goal ought to be penalized.

Goaltending should be for goaltenders only. Sliding proponents might say that we shouldn’t restrict the movement of a player and that it’s not fair to do so since it punishes those who are good at it. My reply is that someone being good at cheating doesn’t excuse it. If a soccer player trips up the one with the ball it’s a foul--no question.

If laying down to block shots is OK, someone ought to bring out a pair of Sumo wrestlers. Together they should be able to effectively seal a 4’ x 6’ hockey net--one is the goalie, the other a defenseman. You could skate 4-on-5 and never lose.
They'd have to change the rules!

GET OUTTA MY WAY--IT'S APRIL FOOLS' DAY !!

Basketball Rules

Charging fouls are too prevalent, and inhibit the smooth flow of the game. They penalize the
player who drives to the basket--reducing point totals. It’s not fair for a player to make a strong move to the net only to have it ruined by someone who jumps in front--like a street bum hopping in front of a car for a payoff--it’s demeaning.


And how is the driver/shooter supposed to avoid contact? The rule should be modified so that once the player with the ball en route to the basket leaves his feet you cannot get a charge call for defenders who are not already in place. If a defender is set in the path of the driver before he takes off it could be an offensive foul if contact occurs while the driver is ascending, and a no-call if contact occurs while the driver is descending. But defenders who pop out in front of the basket while the driver is in the air deserve to be mowed down like bowling pins.



What’s a guy supposed to do when he’s flying in the air and some hotshot moron steps onto his landing strip? A collision is unavoidable, and it’s the defender’s fault. It isn’t good athleticism to hamstring great leapers.


Addendum 4/6/13


Undercutting the Game

I’m not going to say “I told you so”, but the bad charging call by an NCAA official in the closing seconds of tonight’s basketball game between Syracuse and Michigan likely cost Syracuse a berth in the championship game. These charging fouls are having way too much influence on the outcomes of big games! The whole spectacle of defenders “taking the charge” and dramatically flopping about is a perversion of good sportsmanship! Hey, if you can’t take the heat of the game inside the lane, you can just stick to the perimeter!



Many years ago, it took a Final Four travesty display by North Carolina’s team--of stalling the game once they got ahead--to compel the insertion of the shot clock. Hopefully there will be a reform of the charge call now, too.

NFL Should Enforce Safety Rules on Helmets

The NFL this week fined three players tens of thousands of dollars each for particularly brutal tackles involving leading with the helmet.

There's been a backlash among defensive players who say they're just playing hard, that they don't know any other way to play, and so on. One of the fined players wasn't even called for a penalty on the field. Something's wrong with this picture!

According to NFL rules, a tackler may not use his helmet to butt, spear or ram an opponent. It's a 15-yard penalty.

So those who are saying that fining players is wrong because it will compel the defenders to play soft should realize that hitting with the helmet is already prohibited. They've just been getting away with it for years.

Look at footage of games in the 60's and you'll see none of this tackling with the helmet as a weapon. It got started with the Raiders in the 70's and was considered cheap shots. They paralyzed Patriots WR Stingley.

In recent years, it's been all about protecting the QB--leaving receivers and runners free game for assault. The only helmet-contact-related rule they're enforcing seems to be helmet-to-helmet contact.

But helmet-to-anything contact is forbidden by the aforementioned anti-spearing rule. And it should be. The helmet is a protective device, not meant to be a weapon. You're supposed to tackle with your body.

If the NFL would enforce its rule on anti-spearing--maybe, say, sending a memo out to all defensive coordinators and special-teams coordinators that they will be penalized 15 yards every time a tackler leads aggressively with his helmet--you should see the number of such incidents decline substantially.

Steven (Starjet) Kearney