Tuesday, June 5, 2007

Game 4 Observations

1) Another exciting game. There was definitely as edge to the game/series now. That sure garners increased interest. Many, including FAUXRUMORS felt that Ottawa played their best hockey of the series in the 1st period. Thereafter it was pretty even. The difference was that the Ducks capitalized on more of their few chances than the Sens. They are the all around better team and deserve the Cup. As simple as that.
2) Probably the hilite of the night was listening to Don Cherry on NBC. For those who are unfamiliar with him it may have been a bit of a shock to see the oddly dressed, older gentleman speaking bombastically about the game/politics. However, he is a Canadian icon of sorts. He frequently says the wrong/dumb things, but his observations last night about fighting were DEAD-ON! As we have pointed out frequently here at FAUXRUMORS fighting sells! To try to reduce or even sillier eliminate that part of the game to mollify people who don't like the game anyway is well beyond stupid. Americans are not unlike their Canadian counter parts, we love a good scrap. No one up and leaves their seat/changes the channel during a fight!
3) The uproar about the Alfredsson shot on Niedermayer was silly. Should he have done it?Probably not, but it is NOT an 'infraction'. IF he had shot the puck AFTER the whistle, or at a player NOT on the ice it should be. As it was Niedermayer was in front of him. An unspoken hockey etiquette not to do, but not a rule per se.
4) While it would be preferred to see the Cup awarded at a team's home rink, FAUXRUMORS hopes to see Ottawa extend the series. If for no other reason than to reduce the long off season by a few more days. A 5 game Finals is NOT what we would prefer. Seven would be quite nice. It doesn't appear likely though. It will take quite a bit for Ottawa to win tomorrow. They'd have to do what they've been unable for 4 games: Play 60 minutes, have their best players BE their best players and get top flight goaltending.

11 comments:

Shuck-A-Luck said...

The Alfredson shot at Nieds is against the rules. There are many rules they could have pulled it under...unsportsmanlike conduct would be the best fit. Could even argue intent to injure, a bit of a stretch, scratch that, a lot of a stretch.

But Unsportsmanlike conduct would have fit. The problem would be proving intent. While we can all speculate that Alfredson intended to do that, how could you ever prove that he did? Guys get hit with the puck all the time, it is tough to prove intention.

The big thing it did was turn around a bad end to the second period for the Ducks. The Ducks had a solid 15 minutes of 2nd period play, but had quieted down and allowed the Sens back in the game. That silly play ruffled up the Ducks feathers and brought them back into the game. A very stupid move by Alfie.

FAUXRUMORS said...

1) That would open up another can or worms for the NHL. As it is the skate/kicking motion, and diving problems have many shades of gray to make the average fan not understand the rules
2) Intent is NEVER an easy thing for on-ice officials to determine. as we wrote originally, it wasn't the right thing to do, but its not a penalty, nor should it be.
3) As for it being a motivator of the Ducks; that's debatable. They seemed to be coming on after a bad 1st frame anyway. They appear to just be the better team.

Antzmarching said...

Random Observations:

1. Heatley finally arrived at the arena... In the end, it didn't matter "Score-wise," but it was great to see Dany playing like the elite player that he is...

2. Alfredsson? Not sure what he was thinking, but it clearly was not the worst thing I have seen... Maybe he had a verbal exchange with Scotty earlier in the play...

3. Emery made some fantastic saves and probably was not the reason the Sens lost - but, I still think he should have had the second goal... It seems Giguere never GIVES one away... Shots that elude JS, would get by every netminder...

4. Great job by Coach Murray mixing up his lines - his tactic was effective for a while...

5. Why did George McFly pass on Getzlaff and select Eric Fehr?

6. While Lloyd believes Pronger may be overrated, I feel several Ducks are greatly UNDERrated - MacDonald, Beauchemin, Perry, and even Giguere come immediately to mind...

Jibblescribbits said...

Antz. Pahlsson is underated too, at least until this postseason. Now he's getting a lot of press.

Fighting = good. Cheap Shots = Bad.

The NHL needs to learn the difference, embrace one and dig in against the other.

Antzmarching said...

Oh yes, absolutely - Samuel Pahlsson is a super player... He'll be adding silver to his gold... My bad oversight...

Antzmarching said...

Shuck said, "That silly play ruffled up the Ducks feathers and brought them back into the game. A very stupid move by Alfie."

This is a most insightful and accurate comment... In giving this nary thought until now, I completely agree with this assessment... Alfredsson's ill-advised decision may have swung the momentum once and for all the Ducks way...

Sauce said...

The Sens lost game 4 because Emery wasn’t up to the task of playing true Stanley Cup hockey. The 2nd goal was of the type NEVER let in by a Cup winning goaltender. He had to make only two saves in the first period that was dominated by his team, yet each save was shaky and 2 “non-shots-on-goal hit iron. The truth of the matter is that he’s reverted back to a style that he’d successfully abandoned during the regular season. He had given up his overly aggressive play of the angles to be more of a new-style, stay at home presence (much like king Henrik in NY). Emery was using his size to cover the low shot post to post and stay back in his net more. That style would’ve prevented at least 2 of t he 3 goals last night. Instead he was six feet out of his net on both the 2nd McDonald goal and Penner’s winner. When Volchenkov allowed extra time for a shot on each, it was simple to just maneuver around Emery and hit the open net.

Bethany said...

I don't know that I can handle anymore playoff hockey...it's making me nuts.

Sauce said...

I know I’m in disagreement with the majority of current hockey fans on this issue, but I’m gonna say it anyway… fighting must ultimately be eliminated entirely from the game of hockey for the sport to ever again gain any kind of legitimacy south of the Canadian border. To actually revert back to allowing fighting as it was prior to the turn of the century is tantamount to selling your soul to the devil in exchange for a short-term an illusionary bump in television ratings.

Don Cherry (and his butt boy Brett Hull) used a ridiculous argument that high NASCAR ratings despite violent car wrecks and high UFC ratings on Spike TV and Versus show that the US audience has an appetite for increased fisticuffs on the ice. Sorry, but that doesn’t fly in the face of reality. The only way to justify an increase in fights as part of ice hockey is to admit an acceptance and satisfaction with the fact that hockey will never again attain true legitimacy among the general sports viewing population. The general sports viewing population will never accept as legitimate a sport that condones, and indeed promotes, violence with fists as “just part of the game.” Sorry, but it’s true. And to claim, as Faux does, that those who won’t accept this are just those “who don’t like the game anyway” is overly simplistic and just plain wrong. Anyone who regularly views sports in general who says that they “just don’t like the game” of hockey hasn’t really made the effort to truly watch the game and learn the rules and nuances of the game. If they did it would be virtually impossible not to like the constant flow of fast action, incredible skill, intricate game strategies, and non-gratuitous physical contact.

And that’s just the point. Considering the checkered history of the game relative to violence, people must first be convinced to watch the sport. They need to be exposed to it. But they’ll never agree to watch something that ‘s not even perceived to be a legitimate sport. To gain true legitimate status for the sport, we must remove the stigma that is still attached to it. The stigma that keeps Joe and Jane Middle America from wanting to even admit to their friends that they have tickets to a game for fear of embarrassment. The stigma that still causes laughs when someone tells the joke that “they went to a boxing match, and a hockey game broke out.” No responsible parent who themselves were never exposed the game as a youth would ever, according to conventional wisdom, purposefully expose their child to a sport that effectively communicates that it’s perfectly fine to express your animosity toward your opponent by flipping off your gloves and helmet and hitting him in the face. That’s what the sport was like 30 years ago. If it reverts back to that, it will forever remain in the niche sport category along with roller derby and ultimately die the same slow death.

FAUXRUMORS said...

1) As always Sauce your comments are welcome and insightful. We've already had our discussion over our disagreement concerning fighting, so we won't rehash it now.
2) Congrats on being mentioned by Stan Fischler as one of his 'favorite bloggers'. Is that a good thing? LOL

Sauce said...

No rehash necessary, Faux. I know there are strong and passionate arguments on both sides of the fighting issue. Just weighing in with my 2 cents after your comments re: Grapes on NBC. I can appreciate each position, especially in light of the recent viewership numbers.

 
Contact the Media