Oooh, pro bono soap! I've heard you're good people. Secco kept saying you were shifty and not to be trusted, but I said he was wrong. Anyone who gives out waffle irons and Peeps can't be all bad, that's all I know. Maybe smelly soaps would help me lure in the next girl. "Hey look baby, I'm a sensitive guy, I've got fruity soaps in my bathroom! Plus I smell like chocolate!" Who knows, it just might work. Put me down for any of 'em except the coffee type one. I don't do coffee. My hockey bag would probably laugh at the soap and spit it out smelling worse than before (I'm betting "goalie sweat" scented soap would be a poor seller), but the closet where I store my gear between games could probably benefit from some scent adjustment! Maybe some pearberry could knock it down a bit.
Know what the internet needs? Scratch and sniff. There should be some kind of scent doo-dad attached to all monitors so you could do scents online.
I'm willing to bet you could count on one hand the number of times in human history that the phrase "pro bono soaping" has ever been uttered, written, typed, or even thought. If I ever start a band, I may call it Pro Bono Soaping. Either that or Monkeypox. I've always thought that Monkeypox would be a great name for a band.
-Ricardo
"2 minutes by yourself and...you feel shame, you know...and then you get free"
You may be right, mon ami. I will not mention the R word again. Of course, their misfortune is due in part to the Garden and having to share it with the miserable K-nix.
Re your obvious lack of staying power with the other gender.....rejoice! Be that crazy Uncle Rico that all the kids adore. Snicker silently when your buddies show scars of marital bliss. Never use soap again. Look only for that male Holy Grail(sorry Mr. Brown), the meaningless physical relationship.
Not sure I like the implication of the phrase "obvious lack of staying power with the other gender". Think maybe you could word that a bit differently? But as for those meaningless physical relationships...
-Ricardo
"2 minutes by yourself and...you feel shame, you know...and then you get free"
Went to the Bruins v Canadiens game in Beantown tonight (currently writing from Chelmsford). Solid fun. We had seats near the corner, sixth row off the glass. Boisterous sell-out crowd, Rene Rancourt singing Christmas carols during the first intermission, a 4-2 win over the hated Habs, and TIMMY
was the first star. All in all, a great night at the rink. Can't wait to see how my pictures came out.
-Ricardo
"2 minutes by yourself and...you feel shame, you know...and then you get free"
And a happy christmas to you too. You're rangers won I see.
Let's go caps.
I was very angry at losing a 3-0 lead with 2 back to back goals from Matts Sundin (penalty shot and 14 seconds later a full strength goal). There were a couple of bad calls. It seemed that whenever the Leafs "iced" the puck it was waved off quickly but when the caps iced it it was always icing (even when it was a missed pass). One of the refs was a good friend of George McPhee too. I'll never understand the new icing rules I guess. But there was a really nice flurry in the 2nd period. Lots of back and forth action. There were too many turnovers in the neutral ice that led to some pretty close shots. Of course shots were also uneven (I think it ended up being 38-27 or some terrible number like that (too tired to look for the stat now.
Looked liked a busy night in the garden. Turned the channel just in time to see the dog pile. What was that all about?
I too don't quite get the icing calls at times but hockey, far more than football or basketball and far less than baseball, has left the old standard rules alone.
What little I've watched this year strikes me as better regular season play than last time around. My biggest frustration is when a team constantly dumps the puck hoping something will happen to set up a possible score. I think that this indicates weak offensive playmaking, uncertainty re passing skills, or maybe just good defense...to me, I want to see that thing worked down the ice.
Hope the soap works. There's a NW breeze coming in, tho it might be the Berlin papermill....nah, that's closed.
Au contraire. His Rangers, on the cusp of breaking the dreaded Curse of Secco, coughed up a 3-0 third period lead and went down to defeat to the Bolts. 0-5 since the Secco declaration. There are unconfirmed reports that Rangers coach Tom Renney has declared a Fatwa on Secco. It is expected that he'll scurry into Salman Rushdie / Dickie Cheney style hiding at an unconfirmed location, as roving hit squads of angry Rangers fans have spread out across the countryside, Acme Brand Cement Shoe kits in their trunks.
There were a couple dogpiles in Boston, it was a spirited game. A couple of "don't poke at the goalie for the puck after the whistle" scrums, plus one where Big Zdeno did his patented "you're so short that I'll just hold you away from my body by putting my hand on your head while your puny little punches don't even reach my body" thing (always very funny). I think the biggest dogpile was when Koivu and Murray had a spirited discussion at center ice. Probably a couple dogpiles up in the stands, too. The Canadiens fans were loud and rowdy up until Boston scored a couple quick goals midway thru the third, then they turned on their boys and started yelling at the Habs. They were particularly unhappy with Alexei Kovalev. He managed to pick up two trippings, an unsportsmanlike, and a goaltender interference (nullifying a Habs goal), drawing the ire of the Canadiens fans behind us ("score a goal, Kovalev, you owe us!").
As for the icing stuff, there's always been the little asterisk on the icing rule that says they can wave off the icing if the linesman thinks a defensive player could have touched it or reached it before it crossed the endline. The change since the lockout is the addition of a second asterisk, stating that "The Linesman shall have discretion to wave off apparent icing infractions on attempted passes if those passes are deemed receivable." The idea here, I gather, is to improve the flow of the game by reducing the number of icings the are the result of failed passes, as well as trying to cut down on potential injuries when a player tries to make a breakout pass and leads the guy by a shade too much, and it ends up in one of those footraces between forward and defender which ends up in a big trainwreck at the end boards as one races to break up the icing while the other races to touch up to get the icing. Well, now they can wave off that icing, and thus avoid the big high injury risk trainwreck. Or something like that. All I know is that this year the linesmen are exercising a lot more judgement on what they think was an attempted pass and not just a dump out. Lots more icings being waved off.
-Ricardo
"2 minutes by yourself and...you feel shame, you know...and then you get free"
At least someone put the kybosh on a shut-out. At the end that's all I wanted. The Rangers wouldn't have a chance against a strong caps team. They were essentially playing the Hershey Bears.
Watching the Flyers/Canes game. What is really strange is watching the different feeds. I have yet to find a non-bias feed. It's always oh poor us.
I watched the NY feed for the Caps team and I thought it was funny the first time I heard "Lundqvist had to make a save" as if it was something against his better nature. Isn't that what he's paid for? But then that's what they said for all the saves made by the goalies. Then when Brashear was in the fight with Shanny the announcers where saying that this was for what Brashear did to Jagr. All that I saw Brashear do was bump Jagr after the puck dropped. This is still hockey, right? Then the hit on Ovey from Orr. It wasn't until they saw the replay that they said it was a high stick.
It was the canes feed that prompted this vent. Forsberg was standing outside the crease and Ward was out at the edge of the crease. He went to butterfly at the edge of the crease and hit forsberg. A goal was scored in the melee (it wasn't forsberg) and Ward was calling for an interference call. The ref immediately pointed to the edge of the crease and indicated that forsberg was outside the crease. Then in a replay the announcers said,"interference is interfereing with a goalie in such a way that he is unable to do is job [shot is fired at the net and forsberg starts to move across the ice in front of the looking for a rebound if there was one] ward goes down and there is contact that is made that's a tough one."
I just saw it again and Ward's stick is clearly outside of the crease and is caught up in Forsberg's jersey. It would be interesting to get a goalie's perspective on that.
Watched the first 5 minutes of the B's game (I'm ill and have been in bed all day today). And I noticed that the Vs feeds seem to be the most non-biased. They seem to have 1 announcer from each team's fan base.
It's a tricky question, really. All things equal, it's probably a goal, but it isn't too black and white. There are a lot of announcers out there who continue to labor under the belief that outside the crease, anything goes, and the goalie is fair game. Detroit color guy Mickey Redmond comes to mind. Due to a lot of announcers continuing to say things like this, there are also a great many fans who believe this to be true. In reality, it's a lot more gray than that. Well actually, parts of it are pretty black and white (i.e. the goalie isn't "fair game" anywhere), but the situation you describe is somewhat gray. Here's what the rulebook actually has to say (with my translation/interpretation following):
Rule 69 - Interference on the Goalkeeper
69.1 Interference on the Goalkeeper - This rule is based on the premise that an attacking player's position, whether inside or outside the crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed. In other words, goals scored while attacking players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances be allowed. Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper's ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal; or (2) an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.
For purposes of this rule, "contact," whether incidental or otherwise, shall mean any contact that is made between or among a goalkeeper and attacking player(s), whether by means of a stick or any part of the body.
69.2 Penalty - In all cases in which an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, whether or not the goalkeeper is inside or outside the goal crease, and whether or not a goal is scored, the attacking player will receive a penalty (minor or major, as the Referee deems appropriate).
Here they are emphasizing that they are no longer following the rule they briefly had in the mid 90s, where having even a tip of the toe in the blue on the far side of crease six feet away from the goalie was enough to disallow a goal. On the other side of the coin, they are also saying that even if it's outside the crease, it can still be interference and can still result in a disallowed goal and/or penalty.
69.3 Contact Inside the Goal Crease - If an attacking player initiates contact with a goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise, while the goalkeeper is in his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will he disallowed.
If a goalkeeper, in the act of establishing his position within his goal crease, initiates contact with an attacking player who is in the goal crease, and this results in an impairment of the goalkeeper's ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.
Any contact with a goalie inside the crease, no matter who initiates it (the goalie or the player), means no goal.
69.4 Contact Outside the Goal Crease - If an attacking player initiates any contact with a goalkeeper, other than incidental contact, while the goalkeeper is outside his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.
Player bumps goalie outside the crease = no goal. Goalie bumps player outside of crease = ? More on this later.
A goalkeeper is not "fair game" just because he is outside the goal crease. The appropriate penalty should be assessed in every case where an attacking player makes unnecessary contact with the goalkeeper. However, incidental contact will be permitted when the goalkeeper is in the act of playing the puck outside his goal crease provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such unnecessary contact.
The "he's not fair game anywhere on the ice" rule. But note that if the goalie is out playing the puck (that's playing it, not saving it), then a player only has to make "reasonable effort" to avoid contact. What constitutes "reasonable effort" varies widely from ref to ref.
When a goalkeeper has played the puck outside of his crease and is then prevented from returning to his crease area due to the deliberate actions of an attacking player, such player may be penalized for goalkeeper interference.
This one ought to be called a little more. I've seen several situations where a goalie was outside the crease to play a puck or whatever and an attacker essentially sets a pick, just stands by the edge of the crease and forms a barrier (usually while pretending to look the other way and acting like it was unintentional in that comically obvious way so typically of goalies). Per the rules, that's goalie interference, but I've seen a lot of refs let that slide.
Here's your gray area. The rulebook is clear that inside the crease, it's no goal and possibly a penalty if there's player/goalie contact regardless of who initiates it (the one exception is that if there's a loose puck in the crease, and the player is judged to have made only incidental contact with the goalie and made a reasonable effort to avoid it, then it's not a penalty and the goal is allowed). The rulebook is also clear that outside the crease, any non-incidental contact with the goalie initiated by the player is interference/no goal. But just what is "incidental"? No definition of that. Who decides if it is incidental? Who decides who initiated the contact? Who decides if it is deliberate? The ref. And needless to say, different refs vary on those questions.
As for what you describe, it's a borderline call either way, really, and one I've seen go both ways this season. The very first line of the rule on goalie interference is "an attacking player's position, whether inside or outside the crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed". So the question here shouldn't be simply "was he in the crease", but rather "did the goalie initiate the contact with a player outside the crease, or did the player initiate it, and was it deliberate, etc." Now, if the goalie initiated the contact, not the player, and although the player obstructed the goalie from making the save, he did so passively while standing motionless and outside the crease, it probably ought to count. But if the player had moved into the goalie (or into the goalie's stick), even slightly, even outside the crease, then probably no goal. If the player passively stood there but inside the crease and was contacted by the goalie while attempting to make a save, then that's an easy no goal. But as you can imagine, it can get awfully gray if the goalie is in the crease and the player is outside the crease when all this happens, and who initiated contact with who, situations like that right at the border can get tricky.
Now, bear in mind that I wrote all that having seen the play. Having just looked up the video now, I have to say that I'm still undecided. I'd like to get a better look at it. I didn't get to see all the angles they probably showed during the broadcast, but from what I could see it looked like Forsberg was in motion along the top of the crease and got caught up in Ward one way or another. If Forsberg initiated the "getting caught up", then it's no goal. If Ward did, and it's outside the crease, then it's probably a goal. But as a general rule of thumb, the NHL wants more goals, so the benefit of the doubt always leans toward allowing the goal. I've seen far more iffy / suspect "goal" rulings than iffy / suspect "no goal" rulings the past two years. If they can find a way to allow it, they will.
As for biased feeds, they all tend to be pretty myopic and annoying. Homerism rules the day. Few could top how John Davidson was back when he was calling Rangers games (typical play: Ranger forward pulls 9mm handgun out of his belt, shoots opposing goalie. Jagr scores while the goalie lies motionless and bleeding. Davidson: "I don't see a penalty there"). But some come close. The Leafs guys are awful, and some of the southern teams' announcers seem to assume that no one watching knows hockey therefore they can lie thru their teeth and no one will know. The guys on Vs annoy me sometimes because, when you follow a team and see them every game, you get to understand what's going on better. Sometimes the national broadcasters (depending on whom they use to cover the particular game) can be fairly clueless about things. Earlier this season I recall hearing a guy on Vs chide Marco Storm for his lower production this season. At the time the comment was made, Storm was just coming back from an injury and had missed 2/3rds of the Bruin's games, so yeah, his numbers were off. There was another who said the Bruins defense would really need to be strong because Thomas looked like he was "fighting the puck" and "out of control". Newsflash: That's Timmy's style, he always looks like he's fighting the puck and out of control because he's not a pretty classical butterfly goalie like Marc Andre Fleury, he's more of the Dominik Husk junkyard dog "throw any body part you can in front of the puck so long as you stop it" goalie. Never looks pretty, but pretty doesn't matter. They don't ask "how", they only ask "how many". So that's the stuff that can bug me about national broadcasters, they often seem out of touch with what's up with players and teams, I think Vs needs better advanced scouting. But they aren't biased and parochial, I'll give them credit for that...
-Ricardo
"2 minutes by yourself and...you feel shame, you know...and then you get free"
I understand the gray area. There was a coach's corner where Don Cherry was saying that they should stop counting the GAA (at least for the little mites) because it is getting crazy offensively. In watching the Flyers game I gasped when they showed Esche's numbers. As I remember Esche was a pretty good goalie. He had a 5.13 GAA. The only reason that Kolzig has a decent save percentage is the number of shots he faces on any given night.
I broke out my rulebook a couple of nights ago. It is from 2003 (so it is out dated). Every rule I read the Caps commited that offense. I told Louis, "There's a fiticuffs section" I looked up and Brashear was getting into a fight. I then remembered that against the Leafs Sundin was awarded a penalty shot. I didn't understand why, and big shock, the leafs announcers didn't say anything except, "Kolzig is taking exception but his skates went first." It seemed like a strange statement so I looked under penalty shot looked up and there was a breakaway with ovechkin hooking from behind. I threw the book down and said that I wasn't going to read it again. (Still never found out why there was a penalty shot).
I don't know that high scoring games is what the game needs. Is that what is going to get people passionate about hockey? i don't think so. I think that great chances and great playing is going to get people excited. I'm still a little shocked when I see scores like 6-5 or other crazy numbers like that. Yeah it's a barnburner but so is a game that is 2- 1 with great technical skill. People like Ovechkin and Crosby seem to be the wave of the future. And people seem to be spending the cap money on the big goal scorers. The Broad Street Bullies are a thing of the past yet the Captials seem to be holding onto that all around hockey team. I've heard some people resurrecting the olde nickname "Scrapitals" fits them.
BTW did you see the suspensions doled out from the Caps/Rangers game? 5 for Orr on the hit on Ovey and 1 for Brashear for the sucker punch on Ward. Hopefully the Caps can pull out of this nose dive. They are really missing their defensemen from the flu and hopefully Zeddy will be back before the end of the season.
The AutoGuide.com network consists of the largest network of enthusiast-owned enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
AutoGuide.com provides the latest car reviews, auto show coverage, new car prices, and automotive news. The AutoGuide network operates more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share opinions as a community.
Lawdy, Lawdy, the Cross I bear. 
