Life in Exile

Say what you will about the senility of Bob Cole or the Habs-centered worldview of Pierre et Yvon, at least they understand the central principal of hockey: the team which (legally) puts the most pucks into its opponent’s net, wins. Down in the States, however, this point is poorly understood.

First off, is this obsession with violence. The Flyers' slogan, and entertainment theme at their home games, is "Vengeance." Vengeance for what, you might ask? The many years of Bobby Clark-imposed suckiness? The fact that they have to live in Philly? Now, I've never played organized hockey, so I'm not too sure what coaches say in dressing rooms, but I've always had the impression that they usually tell their players to avoid seeking revenge, and taking the dumb penalties that go with it, in favour of scoring goals. But, apparently, not in Philly. The TV commentators also seem to think that the most significant aspects of games are not goals, shots, scoring chances or puck possession, but hits. Apart from the fact that hits are probably the most subjective statistic in hockey, there is no acknowledgement of the fact that a player may take a hit, retain the puck, and score. Or that making a big hit may take a player out of position, thus leading to a goal. These matters are irrelevant. Particularly baffling is that this viewpoint is especially pushed by the colour commentator for the local Boston coverage, Rick Middleton. As a former Lady Byng winner, you'd think he'd have a different perspective. I guess living in Boston for twenty years does something to you.

Not, of course, that the commentators’ focus on non-goal related issues is confined to violence. Immediately following Saturday's Caps-Flyers game, in which the Caps put on a pretty strong effort to stay alive, the NBC commentators stressed not the Caps victory or defence in the last two, tense minutes, but the Flyers remarkable puck control in the game's dying seconds. Apart from the utter lack of class in not focusing on the winners, the obvious point seems to be: the Flyers, even with the extra attacker, didn't score. Thus, no matter how much the commentators liked their puck control, it failed in its most basic objective, which is to SCORE A FUCKING GOAL! Props, at least, to Pierre McGuire for trying to teach the commentators how to pronounce "Martin Biron" correctly. Needless to say, he failed and they quickly reverted to "Marty."

All this to lead up to my main source of astonishment: the Sobotka goal in last night's Montreal-Boston game. While showing a slow-motion replay that, to my eyes, clearly showed two Bruins to be offside, the Versus commentators had this contribution: "Wow, what a great call! That just shows you how sharp the linesmen are, because to the naked eye that play looks offside." (I'm trying to remember a game that on the whole I'd rather the forget, but I'm pretty sure that quote is essentially accurate. I will swear to the naked-eye part.) Now, I won't take a position on the offsideness of the goal itself. Maybe a different camera angle would demonstrate something different. But the point is, the one the broadcasters were using most definitely did not. And yet, they refused to believe the visual evidence right in front of them, perceived by their own eyes. I'm sure George Orwell had something to say about people who do that.