I used to like the Blackhawks. After all, I was born in Dupage County Hospital.
I used to like the Bruins. After all, my father is from Boston.
Then the Blackhawks exhibited a complete lack of class by roughing up Canuck players before, during, and after the whistle in consecutive seasons, abetted by the referees of the National Hockey League, who put away their whistles for the entire playoffs. The rules that applied all season long ceased to apply during the playoffs.
A year later the Bruins did the same things during the Cup finals, again with the complete cooperation of the league and its officials. Skating by a player and punching him in the stomach became the norm, rather than a penalize-able offense.
So I stopped cheering for both the Blackhawks and the Bruins, instead actively rooting against them. Caused a bit of a quandary when both teams went to the Stanley Cup finals this year. Decided that I just couldn't, in good conscience, cheer for the Bruins at all, so held my breath and hoped that the Blackhawks would win.
Yay! That's about all the enthusiasm I can muster. The Bruins didn't win another Stanley Cup. And since I don't have TV I didn't see any of it, although from the game summaries I read, seemed like a good series.
Edit: Realized the my title was backwards.
5 comments:
Hey I love reading your blogs. But me being a big hockey fan and huge Boston fan Red Sox and bruins I don't see how you can say hockey has grow to be a harsh and physical sport. Isn't that half the fun of watching hockey.
Read carefully. I never said harsh or physical. I said dirty. Punching a guy in the stomach as you skate by him, skating all the way across the ice at full speed for the sole purpose of boarding the opposing team's star player, multiple other examples, and no response from the refs.
I mainly don't like the fact that the league officiates one way during the regular season and then another way during the playoffs.
I suppose I see your point. Now what about the NFL do you think officials are to strict on the safety of the players like a defenseless receiver or rules protecting the guarterback when really it's football and they should know what they(players) are signing up for and shouldn't have all these rules protecting them.
Sorry I just had another thought. I'm not sure how much history you might now about the NFL but during the 2001 Super Bowl the Oakland raiders and New England patriots were playing and there was a play where Charles Woodson came on a blitz and stripped the ball from Tom Brady and they would win the came but the officials called a "Tuck Rule" which had never been called and haven't since a matter of fact removed from the rule book. Of course me being a raiders fan I have to disagree with that call. Now my question is would you call that an act of bias towards the raiders and positive bias towards the patriots I'm sure for this to make more sense I would have to include more points in history but if you follow the NFL this could be an easy question
I don't really care what the rules are, so long as they are enforced consistently and fairly. I leave it up to the league to decide what rules best suit the product they are trying to sell. Obviously some rules they try are idiotic (no celebrating in the end zone) and they get rid of them because they are universally hated. Some rules are good (don't hit with your helmet) and the players adjust.
The tuck rule? I don't really care. I doubt there is an institutional bias on the part of the league towards the Raiders, what purpose would it serve the league. It serves the Raider Nation to think that though.
Post a Comment