Hockey Hell Yeah

DeadSkunk wrote: JeepinMatt, if you happened to see the men's curling gold medal game, you saw the other side of Canadian behaviour. Some clown in the crowd had a horn and blew it (twice !!!) right when the Norwegian skip was delivering his rocks. The crowd started booing the fool with the horn, but would stop while anyone was shooting. It worked, the horn wasn't heard again, except to celebrate the win. I would also suspect that the type of person at the curling might be different than the people at the hockey game who exhibited the poor behaviour.

I saw quite a bit of curling. Didn't understand a whole lot of it, but still learned a bunch. Didn't see the Gold medal game. I'm glad the crowd didn't stand for that crap.

I figure that we see more of the dedicated fans coming all the way down for an away game, while the Olympics typically has a lot more people who are going for the novelty of it. Sometimes the hardcore fans show better sportsmanship than those one-month fans that just come for the big games, like the Playoffs.

I've been to some University of Michigan games and the student crowd had some routine chants that used words I didn't want my kids to learn. The university decided that was enough and actually stopped the swearing. Don't know how they did it, but I'd bet it involved threats to keep students out of the arena ! I'm all for cheering for your home team, and even booing the opposition, but the swearing crap crosses a line.

zomby woof wrote:

In particular during the first US vs Canada game, that the US only won because we got lucky.

That's not true. Everybody knows you won because Brodeur was brutal, and Miller was excellent.

I'm happy with Silver. I think we overachieved, because we weren't the 2nd best team out there. It was a fantastic game, and I realize that the only people rooting for the Americans were Americans. I don't doubt that the season-long hockey fans know the ins and outs of the game, but I heard "luck" thrown around too much during the games, presumably by those that don't know the game so well.

As a side note, every Carolina Hurricane that played in the Olympics went home with a medal. Tuomo Ruutu (not his flesh-biting brother) and Pitkanen for the Finnish, Tim Gleason for the US and Eric Staal for the Canadians.

DeadSkunk wrote: alfadriver, you ought to try a Plymouth Whalers game . It would be interesting to get your take on it. I've been to a few (1 or 2 per season) Michigan games. I think OHL is faster, but the college players are older and ,with that,comes size and experience. OHL plays more games and the competiton is closer, I think. Added bonus is that fans come in from Saginaw, Sarnia or Windsor ,so it gets loud sometimes.

Seen them enough on TV. The hockey is good, the connection isn't there- that's the main issue. College hockey fans are far more connected to the teams- being that half of the fans are students, and most of the remaining ones tend to be alumni. It was FAR more crushing to me watching UM get beat by Notre Dame in the national semi final than Detroit getting beat in 7 by Pittsburg. Plymouth might be good hockey, but I can also get that at the USDP progam at IceCubed. And they represent me as an American.

And I see the players play with that passion. Well, except for this season...

E-

Shaun wrote:

mtn wrote:

minimac wrote: Even the officiating was reasonably good!

Really? I thought it was awful. Maybe just cause I look for it all the time; seeing as I am a ref.

Why was it bad? Did it affect the outcome of the game? I have no idea, I don't know the game, but I sure liked watching it.

Offsides is the easiest call to make. Not so much in the Gold medal game, but in the entire tournament, they missed a LOT of those. No, I didn't see anything that affected the outcome of the game (no missed goals, bad penalties(**) or missed penalties) but they did miss a lot of calls, IMHO.

(**)Penalties are subjective, and often hard to call on the ice. I'm lenient in this regard.

mtn wrote:

Shaun wrote:

mtn wrote:

minimac wrote: Even the officiating was reasonably good!

Really? I thought it was awful. Maybe just cause I look for it all the time; seeing as I am a ref.

Why was it bad? Did it affect the outcome of the game? I have no idea, I don't know the game, but I sure liked watching it.

Offsides is the easiest call to make. Not so much in the Gold medal game, but in the entire tournament, they missed a LOT of those. No, I didn't see anything that affected the outcome of the game (no missed goals, bad penalties(**) or missed penalties) but they did miss a lot of calls, IMHO. (**)Penalties are subjective, and often hard to call on the ice. I'm lenient in this regard.

Uh, the FIRST US goal was offsides.... that almost had a HUGE impact.

And you missed that?

E-

alfadriver wrote: Uh, the *FIRST* US goal was offsides.... that almost had a HUGE impact. And you missed that? E-

Case and point. No, I didn't see it, I was doing homework and not focusing entirely on the game at that point.

JeepinMatt wrote: It was a fantastic game, and I realize that the only people rooting for the Americans were Americans.

I was rooting for a good game but I wanted the Canadians to win. My wife was rooting for the US of course I got what I wanted. An overtime game with Crosby scoring the final goal? It might as well have been a movie script.

I definitely agree that college fans are more connected to their teams. I went to just about every football game when I was at school, and yelled myself hoarse. Haven't been to more than one or two games since.

My personal favorite chant that we have at UAH is "Give me a S, Give me a E, Give me a X, What's that spell? SEX. What's that mean? Score, Score, Score. Now do it hardcore. S-E-X-X-X. Score score score." Or where we spell out University of Alabama Huntsville and shout some other stuff. That is the world's longest cheer.

Keith wrote: An overtime game with Crosby scoring the final goal? It might as well have been a movie script.

Yeah, a movie script analogous to Driven

I'm more bothered by the fact that Crosby scored it than the fact they won. I respect his playing skill, but I dislike his attitude. There were a lot of great players on that team I'd rather have scored the game winner.

I might not be allowed back across the border into Canada tonight for saying this, but it really seemed like the American team wanted it more. Canada came out hard the first period, and then got lazy until the OT. On power plays, the US would ice the puck and we'd just lazily skate back to our own end and then lazily skate the puck back. In our own end, we'd casually skate into the corner, usually getting beat to the puck by an American, but we'd still be able to tie him up. The Canadians just seemed to lack intensity alot of the time. I think if the game with Russia had been closer we would have played the following games a lot harder, but blowing out the #2 seed probably made us a little overconfident. Maybe I was just disappointed that we were only up 2 goals and was being too critical, I don't know.

Also, I wonder if Crosby would have played a lot harder in the tournament if he hadn't won the Stanley Cup last year? Growing up, when playing street hockey we never pretended to be winning a Gold medal, it was always "Bob shoots and scores in OT, winning the Stanley Cup for Montreal!!!!!" We even made a tinfoil Cup one year and played for it at recess at school every day. We never made Gold medals though. I really think that a Gold Medal is secondary to the Cup for a lot of these guys and that they just don't take it seriously, but as more of a novelty. Crosby's already won the Cup, now he's just filling in the empty spaces in his trophy case, so why give 110% all the time?

At least that's my opinion.

Bob

Schmidlap wrote: On power plays, the US would ice the puck and we'd just lazily skate back to our own end and then lazily skate the puck back.

I don't think we saw the same game. Not the same power plays, anyhow.

It sure looked to me like they got up by 2, and coasted. I'm not going to say why I think they did, though

There was no coasting in the OT. When they needed to play, they turned it on. Did the US team touch the puck in OT?

zomby woof wrote: It sure looked to me like they got up by 2, and coasted. I'm not going to say why I think they did, though There was no coasting in the OT. When they needed to play, they turned it on. Did the US team touch the puck in OT?

I didn't see it so much as coasting as much as a neutral zone trap. Gave the US team fits. And protected a shaky Luango.

OT let the dogs out. I suspect that had the US second goal happen a little earlier, we would have seen something similar.

E-

I think the more open ice in OT suited the Canadian team better, that was a big reason for the change in play. But I'm not a heavy hockey watcher. I didn't notice coasting, I was afraid to go leave the couch to pee in any period.

Babcock told them to abandon the defensive strategy, and play for the win. That was the reason for the change in play.

zomby woof wrote: Babcock told them to abandon the defensive strategy, and play for the win. That was the reason for the change in play.

This. They had the lead until the very end, they were playing defensive until the very end.