__________________________________________________________
4 on 4: Darkness Visible
It took a bit for our eyes to adjust to the dark. Rummaging around the NHL's dank, shadowy
basement of bad ideas, stumbling over a jumble of soggy boxes filled with overpriced tickets,
relocated franchises, video replay cameras, expansion team third jerseys, extra TV time-outs, and
other assorted garbage, we thought at first we were seeing just one more ugly pile of junk amid
the gloom. But after a few moments, chills suddenly ran up our spines, as we began to discern
a hideous visage amid the shadows, and recognize the demonic presence rising from within the box
marked "4 on 4."
The very notion of 4-on-4 overtime, and the idiotic lose-and-you-still-get-a-point concept
that rode in with it, is ugly and absurd enough just on the face of it. It ain't hockey, for starters.
And we'll just assume there's no argument there. There was no demand for it, either, except
possibly from Basketball Boy in the NHL Commissioner's chair, backed by the inevitable witless
cheerleading of The Hockey News. "Hockey fans hate the idea of tie games"? Sez who?
Since when? The "urgent need" to produce a winner and a loser in every game, an appallingly
American notion, is a completely prefabricated need, manufactured by the NHL for those "fans"
who are too numb to think for themselves. Loath as we are, however, to criticize our fellow fans,
there are plenty out there -- presumably newcomers to the game, with no regard for hockey's
traditions -- who think 4-on-4 is really the berries. Euww! Get a clue, kids! Anyway, listen,
we said 15 years ago, when regular-season overtime was reintroduced, that a five-minute session
wouldn't settle a significantly larger proportion of tie games -- that, if the NHL was really serious
about producing fewer deadlocks, it would revive regular-season overtime as it was played until
World War II, and play 10-minute sessions. We stand by our projection that 10 minutes of
proper 5-on-5 play would yield a winner in at least two thirds of OT games -- a much higher
proportion than five minutes of 4-on-4.
The NHL's party line has it that the post-game 4-on-4 shinny exhibition is oh so exciting,
far better than the turgid spectacle of two teams standing around for five minutes in a defensive
shell. Well, yeah, there's more action -- but in order to get there, we now have to sit through
a full 20 minutes of two teams playing shuffleboard, as both play the entire third period
intent only on preserving their point for reaching overtime. Thanks, Gary!
Can we get a witness? Now that The Great One has taken an official post-retirement position
as the devil's cabana boy ("I want to thank Gary Bettman for allowing me to play in the National
Hockey League"), we must turn to another unimpeachable figure as the spokesman for our game.
Will Steve Yzerman do? Five 50-goal seasons, six 100-point seasons, nine All-Star appearances,
the Conn Smythe, and the near-universal respect of players and fans should qualify him, eh?
Yzerman, interviewed by David Shoalts of The Globe & Mail, dismissed the whole idea
of 4-on-4 as "too gimmicky."
Shoalts reports that Stevie Y, "one of the players for whom the four-on-four approach to
overtime was designed, has a message for the National Hockey League: Get rid of it. Yzerman
feels that too much of the game's intensity is lost."
"It's getting to be like the all-star game," Yzerman said, following a 1-1 draw in Toronto
November 13th. "Is that what we want? Back and forth, back and forth. We talk about it,
and it's just 'Go.' If we're playing our own conference, it's different. But we were playing the
other conference [the Leafs] in overtime. That was just one end to the other, the [defence]
jumping up and trying to pick off passes and just go. That's not hockey."
Yzerman, our new hero, derided the way the guaranteed point for having reached OT subverts
the fundamental concept of win-lose-or-draw -- and the fact that while teams will open it up in OT
against out-of-division opponents, they still play a cautious style in OT against teams in their own
division, unwilling to surrender the "bonus" point for winning even if they themselves retain the
point for losing in overtime. "I don't see this guaranteeing-a-point stuff," he said. "It should be
two points or none. That four-on-four there [on Saturday], both teams got a point. It makes
no difference to us if Toronto gets two. It just becomes a free-for-all, just basically river hockey.
I don't like it at all."
Anyway, said Yzerman, "What's wrong with a tie? They played with ties for 70, 80 years
and the game seemed to do just fine. There's too many changes. It's getting gimmicky now,
and adding more to it just makes it more gimmicky."
Yzerman's teammate, the venerable defenceman Larry Murphy, added ominously, "It's a
real strange situation, especially if you're playing a non-conference team. It doesn't matter
if you lose."
If hockey really needed this, the owners wouldn't have rammed the new OT rules through
without consulting the GMs and over the GMs' subsequent objections. No, there's a far more
sinister agenda at work here. The evil presence rising out of that 4-on-4 box is the spectre of
4-on-4 all the time.
Scoring down? Salaries up? That's right, don't solve those problems with obvious, common-
sense responses like cracking down on clutch-&-grab or adopting sound business practices, no,
no. Instead, what's the thinking in the NHL boardroom? We figure it's something very much like
this: Look, there's an untapped stream of hockey revenue among basketball and pro wrestling
fans in the Sun Belt who can't even count to five, so let's get rid of all that "defensive strategy"
and "congestion" on the ice, and the fans who love real hockey can go to hell. Even more
important, player salaries are "out of control!", and the CBA with the Players' Association is
going to run out in just a couple more years. So let's pave the way for smaller rosters and
smaller payrolls. Won't have to pay as many guys if there's never more than four skaters on
the ice.
Frighteningly, there's a lunatic fringe among fans and hockey press who are already at work as
apologists for this cataclysmic sea-change. "Today's players are too big for the small ice surface"
is one easily-refuted claim that's nonetheless parroted endlessly, while another has arisen that
permanent 4-on-4 is just an inevitable part of the game's evolution. Well, forget it. Any argument
that hockey, like any sport, is evolutionary, and is therefore open to such a radical makeover, is
hogwash. Yes, every sport, every game, experiences a developmental stage. And then its rules
achieve that near-perfect equilibrium between offence and defence, a balance between suspense
and gratification, that permits only the subtlest tinkering thereafter. Yes, hockey was once a
seven-man game. So what? It also allowed no forward passing and forbade goaltenders to
drop to the ice. Baseball, once upon a time, required eight balls to yield a walk and a hitter
was retired if his batted ball was caught on a bounce. Time was, football likewise prohibited
the forward pass. All these things were generations ago, and those ancient versions of these
games would barely be recognizable to fans today. Will we soon say the same of the hockey
we've grown up with and lived our lives watching and playing?
Four-on-four in overtime is the beckoning forefinger of Satan -- and we must not allow it
to gain even a momentary grip, or the game we know and love may soon be gone. Our most
immediate suggestion: if you're attending a game that's tied at the end of regulation, leave.
That's right, get up and go home. Right then and there. Because the hockey game is over.
Anything that happens after that is not hockey. It's just some gimmicky perversion of the game.
You came to see a hockey game? You just did. It ended in a tie. It's followed by a cheap
carnival stunt. And if you stick around to watch it and applaud, all you're doing is demonstrating
your whole-hearted support for Gary Bettman's plan to undermine our game forever.
-- KER / JZK
__________________________________________________________
After 18 weeks, Stanley Cup finally decided
The actual deciding seventh game of the forever-tainted and previously unresolved "No Goal"
'99 Cup Final was played at long last, in Dallas, on November 3rd. Almost overlooked by the
press amid the sluggish starts by both teams in 1999-2000, there's no question the ramifications
of the game were uppermost in the minds of the players as they met up for the first time since
June 19th. That, you'll recall, was when Gary Bettman ended the infamous Game 6 in Buffalo
by rushing out onto the ice wearing a cowboy hat and declaring Dallas his "favourite city in the
whole world!" For the record, Sabres won Game 7 by a score of 3-1, despite the absence of
Dominik Hasek. After Dixon Ward iced the game with a shorthanded goal midway through the
third period, Buffalo forward Curtis Brown reportedly skated up to renowned jerk Mike Modano
and asked, "Was that goal good?" Yes, it was. It was very good. -- KER / JZK
__________________________________________________________
Scientists claim: Modano not 100% creep
Using a newly-developed tunnelling electron microscope, scientists have discovered an
infinitesimal portion of character in Mike Modano. The minuscule fragment was discovered in
a Dallas hospital laboratory, where Modano had been taken after his head was removed from the
end boards at Reunion Arena. The head, best known previously for insulting the entire state of
Minnesota, trash-talking opponents via the media, and generally carrying on like a member of the
Dallas Cowboys, had been imbedded in the boards courtesy of a filthy and truly scary hit from
behind by Anaheim's Ruslan Salei during a 2-0 Dallas victory in early October.
Five days following his brush with death, Modano read from a prepared statement: "The
result of a professional hockey game should not be that we are lucky to escape paralysis or are
lucky to have our eyesight after willful acts of violence. It should come as no surprise to anyone
that hitting from behind and attempts to injure will and have resulted in devastating injuries. We
have seen several careers end due to head injury, so the players and league are well aware of
the dangers of excessive violence in hockey. Do we have to wait for someone to be paralyzed
or killed before the league, teams, and players come together to act?"
The game, in which Modano suffered a mild concussion and sprained neck ligaments, also
featured a crushing hit from behind on Star forward Joe Nieuwendyk by the Ducks' Pascal
Trepanier (insert skull joke here) and Jim McKenzie's vicious assault on Dallas rearguard
Darryl Sydor (for those of you keeping score, that's another "shattered orbital bone").
"If things continue," threatened Modano, "I'm not going to play anymore. I still have
the rest of my life to live."
The teams were to meet again later that week, and Modano upped the ante and his own
reputation by saying, "I am calling on my teammates to set an example for all players. I don't
want anyone 'getting even' on my behalf." That rematch produced a total of seven minor penalties,
none in the third period with the score out of hand.
Yeah, this is old news, but we didn't get it into our October round-up, and Modano's comments
are well worth noting. This is exactly the sort of thing we call for in the "Bad Blood" chapter of
The Death of Hockey. Why have the players remained silent about, even complicit in, reckless
and malicious violence done to themselves by their own NHLPA union brothers? It's long past due
for more of them -- all of them -- to echo Modano's well-chosen words and emulate his attitude.
-- KER / JZK
__________________________________________________________
Think before you click
Apropos of nothing, America Online -- AOL, or as many know it, "AO-hell," or as it's
simply known around here, "A-hole" -- ran a sports poll on its start-up screen earlier this month.
Bear in mind this was an all-sports poll, not hockey-specific (how many American AOL users
know Jack about hockey anyway?), but it asked the uselessly broad multiple-choice question,
"What do you think is the biggest problem facing professional sports?" Here is the response
AOL users gave:
Overpaid players 8239 42.3%
Greedy team owners 1236 6.3%
Drug use 1101 5.7%
Astroturf 581 3.0%
All of the above 7564 38.8%
None of the above 750 3.9%
Total votes: 19471
Putting aside the whole argument of whether or not players are actually overpaid -- c'mon,
they're the biggest problem in sports? What was the last time a player demanded you put up
tax dollars for a new arena? What was the last time a player announced a hike in ticket prices?
What was the last time a player packed up a beloved franchise and moved it to another city?
We trust visitors to this site know better. -- SIR
__________________________________________________________
Holiday shopping ideas
You can't beat The Death of Hockey as a great holiday gift idea for that hard-to-buy-for
disgruntled hockey fan you love. On sale on-line all along at the ChaptersGlobe and Indigo!
websites (as well as, of course, in the actual Chapters and Indigo stores across Canada), The
Death of Hockey is now also available, along with loads of other great hockey paraphernalia,
at the brand-new NHLFA on-line store. Your purchases there do great things to support
the Association and the site -- but even if you're in no mood to shop, visit anyway to sign up
(very fast and absolutely free) as a member, if you haven't done so already. Check out our
October news round-up if you're not up to speed on the NHLFA. -- SIR
__________________________________________________________
Obits & ovations
Always sad to see a good website go down, but we have to report the apparent passing
of two institutions among the on-line hockey community: Millar's NHL Central, and Pucklinks.
These two well-stocked links sites were among the very first to include us in their directories.
If they've simply relocated to new URLs, we'd appreciate someone dropping us a line.
On a happier note, it may be diagnostically un-Canadian of us, but we do have to give ourselves
a quick pat on the back: right here in November at The Death of Hockey website, we received
our 5000th visitor and our 50th award. Thanks to everyone who's stopped by and to all those
who've paid us homage. -- SIR
__________________________________________________________
Archive
Current news Hot off the presses
October '99 NHLFA Membership Push / NoGoal.com / Buffalo Snooze /
Phoenix Freebie / Death of Hockey Audio
September '99 NHL Thugs Gang Up on Hockey Fan Page
December '98 The Village Voice: "The Death of Hockey"
February '98 The New York Times: "Hockey's Proposed Cures Could Kill the Patient"
___________________________________________________________

by JEFF Z. KLEIN and KARL-ERIC REIF
published by Macmillan Canada
available at Chapters, Indigo, and other fine booksellers throughout Canada
and on-line from Chapters/Indigo and the Hockey Bookshelf
|
chapters.................................................... |
indigo...................................................... |
![Chapters [www.chapters.ca/books/ ]](ChGlLogo.GIF)
buy it here! |
![Indigo [www.indigo.ca/ ]](Indigo.jpg)
buy it there! |
![Hockey Bookshelf [members.aol.com/SportInfRe/IXbkshlf.htm ]](ABHspot1.gif)
or buy it direct from the authors!
- All prices in Canadian funds -
Before you go, be sure to bookmark this site now -- there's no return link at the bookstore
___________________________________________________________
Above & Beyond Hockey
Current News
The Death of Hockey The Hockey Compendium Messier
Read the Reviews Meet the Authors
Contact the Authors/Join the Debate
Fan Forum
Professor Krypto's CrossChecks
The Trophy Case The Hockey Bookshelf Hockey Links
Help Storm the Barricades
National Hockey League Fans Association
Viewing the Explorer/AOL version by mistake?
NetScape 7.1 version
The Death of Hockey
published by Macmillan Canada
(C) Jeff Z. Klein & Karl-Eric Reif 1998
all rights reserved |
 |
Above & Beyond Hockey
website
(C) Jeff Z. Klein & Karl-Eric Reif and
Sports Information & Research 1999-2003, 2004
all rights reserved |
Website constructed by Sports Information & Research
Problems viewing, or linking to or from, this site? Click here to let us know