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!

ON THE SIDE OF GUN SAFETY (WHO ISN'T ??)

The people who oppose the National Rifle Association (NRA) ought to consider a name change from “Gun Control” Supporters/Advocates to something more positive, less to do with big government intruding into your 2nd amendment rights. To much of America, “Control” signifies “Regulation” which means the common man giving up his right to self-protection because of a bunch of lily-livered communistic city folk and big government. And an individual described as “controlling” is felt to have a personality disorder.




The anti-NRAers might try “Gun Safety” to describe themselves. Who wouldn’t want to be on the side of “gun safety”? Big Brother doesn’t want to take all our guns away, they just want us to handle them carefully--so the reasoning goes. The name is the thing. Look at how the term “safe sex” caught on. It’s unlikely that “rubber sex” would have had the same positive impact.

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