Tuesday, June 2, 2009

My thoughts on the Malkin-Zetterberg "incident"

So, my good friends over at Free Tank Carter, who, despite being Penguin fans, are knowledgeable about many non-hockey things that I could never hope to understand, recently asked, in a footnote to an otherwise enjoyable post, for their readers' opinions on "the Malkin fight," throwing in a quick "I'm in favor" before signing off. Rather than leaving a long-winded comment over there, I figured I'd just respond in full entry form over here. Cause why interact with people when you can yell into a cave instead?

First of all, for those of you who would rather read "legitimate" coverage of this latest in the circus that Bettman is running, I direct you to Greg Wyshynski of, yes, Yahoo! Sports.

For those of you that ill-advisedly remain here, let's dive right on in and have a look-see. As always, we'll provide the evidence, and then we'll discuss. With 18.2 seconds left in the game, Detroit up 3-1 and about to take a 2-0 series lead out of the opening pair, Chris Osgood made a save on a rocket from Malkin, stopping play. Maxime Talbot speared Osgood in the chest (presumably thinking he could push the puck through the goalie and into the net), which Henrik Zetterberg then took some issue with, going after Talbot. So far: unremarkable.

Then Malkin came around and started attacking Zetterberg. I say attacking because he started throwing "punches" long before he bothered to put his stick down. I say "punches" because they looked more like tree-chopping moves than anything else. Enough description. Video now, analysis after. For this one, I want you to watch all 1:52 of the video. It shows the incident live, then a closeup of Talbot's spearing, and finally, a closeup of Malkin's sweet sweet moves.



Forget Talbot's stabbing trick. It was a thing he did, it was against the rules, he deserved 2:00 and nothing more for it, he got 2:00 and nothing more for it, hooray. Pens fans are claiming Osgood dove. He probably didn't. I'm not sure what good it would have done him, to risk a dive with 18.2 seconds left in a 2-goal lead. But fine. Who cares? Move on from that penalty.

Watch Malkin. Talbot and Zetterberg are tangled up, and Malkin comes around, stick in hand, and starts whacking away at Z. Eventually, he drops the stick, and it becomes a proper "fight," I guess, until it ends. Now, here's the deal: the penalties, honestly, were fairly reasonable. Z got 5 for fighting, and Malkin got 17: the matching 5 for fighting, 2 for instigating (which is pretty unarguable), and a 10-minute misconduct (presumably for starting a huge, completely unnecessary fight with a guy who was facing the other way, to send a message with 18.2 seconds left, by hitting him with his stick). I'm comfortable with all this.

In fact, let me say, before I get into where this gets hairy, that I don't disagree with a lot of what Malkin did. End of a Game 2 loss to go down 2-0 to the team that beat you in 6 last finals. All the Pens are frustrated, because they finally, upon firing their empty shell of a coach, learned how to play with a system, and became a much more dominant team, only to run into the same infuriating brick wall they ran into a season ago. Malkin wants to lead his team with fierce action (he knows Crosbaby won't): he wants to send a message to his boys that they're not done yet, and he wants to send a message to the Wings that they have something to still be afraid of. If he remembers to put his stick down BEFORE he starts punching a dude (you know, so he can fight him like a man or something), I'm probably totally okay with this. I would still penalize him the 7 minutes, but I would think he did the right thing in taking those penalties for the good of the team, and I would absolutely not want to suspend him or anything.

Wha? Suspend?? I warned you that this would get hairy. There's this rule in the NHL, one of the many insane rules designed to "clean up the game" without a fundamental understanding of what "dirty" is. Rule 47.22 states:

--------------------------------
A player or goalkeeper who is deemed to be the instigator of an altercation in the final five (5) minutes of regulation time or at anytime in overtime, shall automatically be suspended for one game. The Director of Hockey Operations will review every such incident and may rescind the suspension based on a number of criteria. The criteria for the review shall include, but not limited to, the score, previous incidents, etc.
--------------------------------

Wow! So anyone who gets an instigator penalty in the last 5 minutes of a game gets a 1-game suspension, in the name of stopping teams from just sending out their goons to fuck shit up when the game is already lost. Principally, that makes sense. In practice, it can get a little questionable to do something that black-and-white, so they add this even more ridiculous clause whereby the Director of Hockey Operations can rescind the suspension based on [catch-all clause].

Put simply, an instigation minor in the last 5 minutes or overtime earns a one-game suspension, unless Colon Campbell doesn't want it to.

It should not surprise you that Colon Campbell didn't want it to. And, in fact, there's an argument that states that it shouldn't have. It might not be the best argument, but I would believe "Look, this rule is there to prevent a team from sending out its big hitters to injure people at the end of a lost game - there's nothing wrong with someone trying to send a message to his team by bringing in some energy. Malkin was clearly not trying to injure Zetterberg, we're not gonna take him out of a Stanley Cup Final game." It would be a little wavery and ridiculous, but at least it would make some coherent sense. As opposed to Campbell's actual reasoning:

--------------------------------
None of the criteria in this rule applied in this situation. Suspensions are applied under this rule when a team attempts to send a message in the last five minutes by having a player instigate a fight. A suspension could also be applied when a player seeks retribution for a prior incident. Neither was the case here and therefore the one game suspension is rescinded.
--------------------------------

Woof, Colon. Wow and oof. The argument here, if I understand it correctly, is that Malkin does not deserve a suspension because the suspension rule only applies when someone "attempts to send a message"? Go back up and watch that video again. 18.2 seconds left. Losing 3-1. Zetterberg just standing in the crease. Malkin facepalms him, then comes around and starts whacking at him with his stick. And your defense is...somehow...that he's NOT trying to send a message? Then what the fuck was he doing, auditioning for his summer job??

Let us review. The rule says that any instigator penalty in the last 5 minutes of the game warrants a one-game suspension, pending a big undo by Colon Campbell. Malkin receives a fairly unquestionable one (bear in mind (thanks to Wyshynski for this stat) that only 6% of fighting majors this year have come with an instigator penalty - it's not a common thing). He comes in with 18.3 seconds left in a 3-1 loss and goes specifically after Henrik Zetterberg, beating him with his stick at first. Campbell somehow excuses this as "not trying to send a message" and cancels the suspension.

This is a perfect example of what I've been talking about: the NHL does not know what makes a play or player dirty - they have their storylines and they stick to them. If the "bad" guys don't do anything bad, the rules shift to make what they're doing bad. And if the "good" guys do something bad, the rules shift to make it less bad. And it keeps getting more and more obvious, and they're held completely unaccountable by anyone. "Missing the forest for the trees" is a fantastic understatement. In this case, a rule specifically written to keep the game clean was given a caveat of "unless we don't wanna," a player was handed a suspension based on it, the suspension was revoked on a blatantly false claim, and the part where the player actually did anything at all suspension-worthy (the fighting-with-his-stick part, for those of you who napped through the middle of lecture) was completely ignored.

And the worst part is that these kids are never going to learn to play classy hockey, because this kind of behavior is actually commended by the league. They're Bettman's "model franchise"! Ugh. It makes me sick. Go Wings go, the end.

No comments:

Post a Comment