Winning is Not Losing

Any team can "trip up" another. Ha ha, puns.

I hate when the Canucks play teams at the bottom of the standings. No good can come of it. As Skeeter pointed out earlier in the season, good teams are supposed to win games against bottom-feeders. It's expected. The problem is, the act of meeting expectations is often met with a little but a slight shrug. No one commends you for doing a satisfactory job. In truth, the real story is exceeding expectations.

Narrow wins over bad teams, like the Canucks' shootout victory at Nassau Coliseum on Tuesday night, do not exceed expectations. In fact, when the Canucks barely get by a team they were expected to defeat, one could say they've barely met expectations. For fans and media who have lost perspective--spoiled as they are by Vancouver's run of stellar play--barely meeting expectations is equally as bad as failing to meet them. For some, a close win over a bad team is the D-minus of sports. It's shameful. The worst part of it all is when people suggest--as one Team 1040 host did yesterday--that it's as bad as losing.

Well, that's just silly.

There are no D-minuses in sports. There are no grades--it's pass or fail. I know hockey fans love to grade their teams; the Canucks' midseason report cards are a rite of passage. But I've never much cared for this meaningless hockey trope. Who cares if Alex Burrows is only a B+? Sports aren't about how you win. They're just about winning. It doesn't matter if you blow a team out or edge them out so long as you win. There's no shame in almost losing.

You didn't lose.

Furthermore, there is no expected victory in the NHL. It's a league with tremendous parity, where any team can beat any other team on a given night. The New York Islanders may be twenty-seven spots behind the Canucks in the standings, but they're not the Washington Generals. Sometimes they win. Statistically, almost every team should beat them, but they beat other teams besides the Devils and Maple Leafs. In fact, in the last two weeks, they posted wins over Tampa Bay, Montreal, and Detroit. In a win over Pittsburgh, they ended Sidney Crosby's point streak.

They can win, even against top teams; they just won't do it consistently.

The Islanders aren't a team to be taken lightly. No team is. Every win is commendable. The fact that the Canucks win so often is even more commendable.

Granted, a run of shaky outings typically means a losing streak is looming, but we can resort to nail-biting and navel-gazing when the losses actually happen. In the meantime, no win is a loss, because winning is the opposite of losing.

You Just Lost, So There Will Be Positively No Laughing

By now, you've probably seen the above video--maybe a couple of times. It depicts Derek Anderson, Arizona Cardinals quarterback, losing it while a reporter questions why he was laughing on the sidelines during a loss. Incredulous (and rightly so) at this idiotic line of questioning, Anderson tries to stand up for himself, then eventually storms off in a fit of frustration.

Anderson's meltdown has brought out the mockingbirds, perhaps none better than NBA superstar and comedy legend Dwight Howard's excellent parody. It's funny, because Howard is a funny guy. But he of all people should recognize the genuine issue behind Anderson's tirade: people are trying to hold an athlete accountable for his mood after the game, which is sheer stupidity. Most of the time, Howard has a downright sunny personality, even when the chips are down--it's only a matter of time before his natural mood and gift for levity creep into a post-loss scrum, and people start questioning his commitment to winning when he isn't even committed to his post-loss frown.

In the world of sports, laughing is no laughing matter, at least when it comes after a loss. It's kind of stupid.

Hockey had a similar controversy last week, when Alexander Ovechkin drew criticism for laughing and fraternizing with Ilya Kovalchuk following a loss. Now, it was pretty self-centered and inconsiderate for Ovechkin and Kovalchuk to have a loud conversation so near to coach Bruce Boudreau's media scrum, but for most people, that wasn't the issue. The real issue was that Ovechkin seemed in good spirits despite the fact his team had just taken a pounding. Kovalchuk's lowly Devils had just shut out Ovechkin's high-scoring Capitals while scoring five goals of their own, and people accused the Capitals' winger of not taking the loss seriously enough. That near to the recorders, he should have been weeping, you see. Weeping shows remorse--remorse for losing.

I can't believe it's come to this. Get over yourselves, people, it's sports. Granted, some people take it very seriously, but those people are the problem, not the athletes who don't. Are we actually trying to enforce a code of dourness? Do we honestly think we have any right to question how a player feels? Derek Anderson doesn't think so. Neither do I.

I remember once hearing a story about Peyton Manning on the radio. Word was someone had seen him out to dinner with his wife, and he was barely able to speak to her because of his deep depression following a Colts' playoff loss a month earlier. People praised his commitment to winning. I just found it ludicrous. Get over it, guy, the world has larger issues.

Derek Anderson is getting mocked for his meltdown, but his frustration is totally understandable. I can certainly guarantee you he wasn't laughing maniacally because his plan to make the team lose had come to fruition. It was likely unrelated to football, as most things in life are. Outside of that short instance, he was probably genuinely upset about the loss, and here he was forced to defend that fact while being questioned for his effort level and implicitly blamed because the camera caught him being not sad for a split-second? It's absurdity.

Justin Bourne put this issue into perspective in a Puck Daddy article discussing the pet peeves of NHL coaches. One of them is laughter--in any context--after a loss:

In 90 percent of the cases, utter silence is expected.

[...] Coaches try to enforce a serious environment as much as humanly possible.

I always felt like hockey wasn't my life, it was just a part of it.

Because being that serious that often about a game? Now that's laughable.

It is laughable, and I genuinely feel for Derek Anderson. I'm sure, like most athletes, he hates to lose, but also possesses the very admirable ability to put things in perspective. Even after a very disappointing loss, he is capable of laughing. That's not bad.

In his same situation, confronted by a reporter who felt I needed to be taken to task for merely possessing a sense of humour, I might have done worse. I might have briefly left it behind and hit him in the mouth.

And then laughed about it.

PITB Continues to be Almost Famous

Solid video from The Score exploring the Blogger vs. Mainstream Media Battle Royale that Pass it to Bulis was briefly embroiled in for approximately 3 days earlier this month. Damien Cox is featured as the spokesman for the mainstream media, which is a shame, as he spews his usual rhetoric regarding how bloggers can't be held accountable because they don't use their real names, yada yada yada. He does more damage for his own position in the interview than I could ever do taking him to task on our piddly little blog.

But are we so piddly? What is that I see at 2:01 in the above video? I do believe that's a certain article written by our own real-named Harrison Mooney. Sure, they blur out our name so we can't benefit from being featured on The Score, but we still can pat each other's backs and feel good about ourselves.

Seriously guys, this is big. This is being featured in your local newspaper as the "Smile of the Day" big. This is getting re-tweeted by Iain MacIntyre big. This is World's Largest Maple Leaf big. Okay, maybe not that big, but it's still big.

Hat-tip to Canucks Hockey Blog.

McKenzie, Cox, and the Difference Between Bloggers and Journalists

Harrison touched on Damien Cox's recent words regarding Tyler Dellow and his blog. These comments received some backlash, as many thought he was being somewhat harsh. Cox has since deleted the tweets and issued a retraction. Still, his comments managed to stir the pot with the tired, old debate about a blogger's role in the hockey writers' community. The debate, as I said just a second ago, is tired and old, but recent events have required that the dead horse be given one more hard kick in the name of holding "real" journalists accountable.

The story about the Colin Campbell e-mails has shown not only bloggers' potential for great journalism, but actual "journalists'" potential for shoddy disappointment.

Bloggers haven't been given a fair shake. We're more than "web/twitter groupies," as Damien Cox called us. While it'd be fair to say individual bloggers reach fewer people than individual sportswriters, bloggers do have a great deal of influence, as Tyler Dellow's blog showed. The reaction to his blog was instantaneous. He essentially broke a story that TSN, CBC and others had to comment on. That's big. No one can realistically say that Greg Wyshynski isn't a big voice in the hockey world. Still, even he doesn't give himself enough credit. He said this a couple hours ago on his live chat:

"I think we're more like entertainment writers. That isn't to say we're not journalists. It's to say the guys who roll up their sleeves and start preaching about hard-nosed reporting are talking about covering a form of entertainment -- not Afghanistan."

He's right on both counts -- he's writing about a form of entertainment, and that doesn't mean he's not a journalist. While his blog is more editorial than news, he still holds himself to a standard of factual consistency. He's been known to fix any mistake he makes. This is what journalists are supposed to do.

Journalists are supposed to be better than bloggers. I can see right now a bunch of comments telling me that isn't necessarily true, and they'd be right, but it's supposed to be true. I can happily say that I think over 100 people read my comments on the Colin Campbell emails. Bob McKenzie and Damien Cox have thousands upon thousands of readers. They should be held to a higher standard.

Edit: a portion of this article has been removed due to its inaccuracy regarding newspaper headlines and who is responsible for writing them. It has been fixed based on comments and criticisms we have received.

It's clear from his tweets that Damien Cox believes in a higher standard:

"All this 'news' abt Colin Campbell and internal NHL emails was reported months ago by The Star's Rob Cribb" "Cribb did a series of stories. Did background reported. Also asked Campbell for comment. That's called journalism."

But journalism also includes investigative reporting of the sort Tyler Dellow did, when he uncovered and investigated the e-mails nine months later. It was a lucky find, but what he did with it was both journalistic and skilfully so.

Dellow could only do this because the information was public. Rob Cribb could have done it nine months ago. And unlike Cribb, Tyler Dellow probably couldn't call Colin Campbell for comment and expect him to respond. Journalists have the name recognition and the widespread readership that allows them access to the people they cover, and yet they squander this by merely calling for quotes rather than doing real investigative work. Cox, your thoughts?

"It's an interesting comment on these media times, including the fact some 'bloggers' are twisting this to suggest the 'main stream media' is out to protect the establishment and figures in power. Why these people weren't outraged and up in arms when Cribb was writing his stories and The Star was publishing them is unclear. If you employ the logic of the bloggers, their silence was evidence that they were the ones protecting the establishment."

Is it really unclear why the people weren't up in arms when Cribb wrote his stories, Cox? Here, let me help: his stories didn't demonstrate that Colin Campbell clearly had a grudge against Marc Savard and that he was taking an active role in decisions regarding those who referee his son's games.

Journalists have a massive influence and therefore a massive responsibility to their readers. They must know the facts and be clear in their reporting of them so readers finish their articles being more informed than they were before. To borrow a phrase, "That's called journalism."

If Colin Campbell is returning your call, and not mine, then I expect you to adhere to a higher standard than I do, and when you fail, you offend me and everyone else who would love to have your job and do it better. When it comes down to it, a sportswriter's job isn't based on his hockey knowledge. Most sportswriters don't know more about sports statistics, rules and history than the average diehard fan, and the information is readily available to anyone with google. The sportscasters watch the same games we do. The thing that sets sports reporters apart is supposed to be their ability to communicate clearly and their journalistic experience. When they fall down on that job, they're cheapening the profession. Not everyone can go to Afghanistan to write a three-part story on the war, poverty and terrorism, but any sports fan can watch a hockey game and report the score.

That's why it's infuriating to see a paid professional sports writer who doesn't know the difference between compliment and complement. It's why it bothers me so much to see bad, over-used headline puns on the TSN front page. And it's why it broke my heart to see Bob McKenzie say something that wasn't true, and then make no correction when it was pointed out to him.

Bob McKenzie's take on the Colin Campbell e-mails was wrong on many levels. It addressed the wrong issue of the Savard-Cooke hit and lack of suspension, and Campbell's role in issuing suspensions. He never addressed the issue of Colin Campbell using his influence to protect his son from referees.

Worse, he was factually incorrect:

"As for the emails, [...] nothing was ever acted on, that we're aware of, because the referees that Colin Campbell complained about to Walkom, they're still working in the National Hockey League."

His argument was that these e-mails weren't a big deal, because they didn't lead to anyone's firing. As I've said before, these e-mails were used as evidence to show why Dean Warren was fired. In other words, it's the official position of the NHL that, contrary to McKenzie's assertions, the e-mails were acted on and resulted in the firing of Dean Warren, which is a very big deal.

In the blog post I originally made, I made a factual error, as well. No one messaged me about it, but when reading Tyler Dellow's follow-up, I realized I'd made an error and went back to fix it. Bob McKenzie, on the other hand, has had days to fix his error, and has several people informing him of it, including myself, and has failed to make any kind of correction.

I've always loved Bob McKenzie, but he should know better. He pointed out in a tweet today that he follows Canadian Press style. That's great. But if you're going to boast about following the same stylistic rules as the collective of Canadian journalists, can't you follow the same journalistic principles when it comes to making sure you don't accidentally misinform people, and that you issue a correction whenever you become aware of your mistake? Sadly, this whole issue has been eye-opening for me. If Bob McKenzie isn't going to behave like a real journalist, why should I take him more seriously than, say, Matthew Barnaby, who's at least played the game in the NHL?

To a degree, I understand. Bill Daly chose to speak to TSN about the Colin Campbell e-mails first. That's a big scoop for TSN, and you don't want to bite the hand that feeds you. That said, if a few early quotes are the price of your journalistic integrity, there wasn't much to begin with.

The point? I've given two examples of bloggers who were acting more like journalists than the real thing. Rob Cribb, Damien Cox and sadly, Bob McKenzie have fallen down on the job. It's bloggers like Tyler Dellow who have done the actual investigative work, and it saddens me that the real journalists aren't willing to show the same journalistic integrity and discipline.

The Wrong Questions: Colin Campbell and the Media's Poor Response

So the story about Colin "Lord Chaos" Campbell's e-mails has been active for about a full day. Originally, I elected to bite my tongue, confident that the right questions would be asked. How wrong I was.

To those who aren't familiar with this story, hockey blogger Tyler Dellow posted an article yesterday (Sunday) that started this whole thing. Dellow had found this court decision on a wrongful firing suit filed by former NHL referee Dean Warren. Warren claimed he was fired for his union work, so the NHL had to show evidence of his failures as a referee. To do so, they submitted into evidence, among other things, several e-mails between Colin Campbell and then-Director of Officiating Stephen Walkom. These e-mails had been redacted, but some had enough details that they could be traced back.

Dellow, after what I'd imagine was a great deal of investigative work, pinned down two specific penalties. The one that got the most attention was a call in which Campbell's son, Gregory Campbell, was given a high-sticking penalty against Marc Savard. Campbell called Marc Savard a "fake artist" and just showed a general dislike for the guy. There were two specific charges that followed -- that Campbell was unfairly biased towards his son, and that he was unfairly biased against Marc Savard, and that this affected his judgment when deciding to suspend Matt Cooke.

What's been said about this? TSN's Bob McKenzie said this:

"There's no question that there's a perception of inappropriate behavior when Colin Campbell sends an email within the office to Director of Officiating at the time Stephen Walkom. As for the specific charge that maybe Marc Savard would not get a fair shake in the Matt Cooke hearing when Matt Cooke delivered the knockout blow to him because Colin Campbell called him a little faker at some point I can only tell you this: I don't have e-mails to prove it, but I would venture a very strong guess that whatever Colin Campbell and the NHL Hockey Operations Department think of the way Matt Cooke plays the game is far worse than whatever Marc Savard would be deemed in terms of being a 'little faker.'"

He then went on to cite the Cooke-Savard hearing as an example of Campbell's integrity. I sort of agree on that point -- Campbell probably wanted to get Matt Cooke and didn't.

Elliotte Friedman of cbcsports.ca had this seemingly-relevant tidbit to contribute:

"The key thing to note here is that the emails in question were exchanged three years ago. On March 29, 2009, Steve Ott nearly decapitated Colin's son, Gregory Campbell. Ott, a repeat offender, was given no suspension."

That would be very interesting if Campbell had anything to do with that hearing. Campbell, of course, recused himself. Safeguards exist to prevent his ruling on hits on his own son.

What about Greg Wyshynski of Puck Daddy?

"I believe those holding up emails that deal with his son and malign the reputation of Marc Savard of the Bostin Bruins as a smoking gun that Campbell's been unfair to him are, ironically, being unfair to Colin Campbell [...] We don't have evidence that his personal feelings on Marc Savard (oddly not addressed in the TSN statement) contributed to any action taken (or not taken) in cases with which Savard's been involved."

Again, this is true, but missing the point, although to his credit, Wyshnyski does spend a lot of time on the real concern. The one that's been all but ignored.

Of course Colin Campbell didn't let his grudges impact his decision not to suspend Matt Cooke. Campbell isn't that kind of idiot. Campbell would never use his power to further his personal grudges. That's a sure-fire way to get caught.

The evidence shows, though, that while Campbell didn't abuse his power, he did abuse his position.

Being the Senior Vice President and Director of Hockey Operations means you have more than just official power, you have implied power. People tend to do what their boss says, rather than questioning whether he's allowed to tell them to do that. On numerous occasions, as I'll show in a minute, Colin Campbell wrote furious e-mails to Stephen Walkom, his subordinate, about calls made against his son. Campbell's explanation was ridiculous:

"Stephen and I would have banter back and forth and Stephen knows I'm a (hockey) dad venting and both of us knowing it wouldn't go any further than that. Stephen would laugh at me."

Really? Let's take a look at this "venting." Keep in mind that these e-mails aren't the only ones that took place -- they're just the only ones with Dean Warren's name on them.

The following is an e-mail from Colin Campbell to Stephen Walkom that took place in October 2006. The names and dates were redacted Some expletives have been cleverly replaced, and are marked in green.

"Are you trying to f____ with my head? Sending this guy back into …..after the …..call and others? Have you talked to him yet and have you seen the penalty he called on [player]? Should I call him? Talk to [another referee] he will tell you the [pony poo] game Warren had and how hard it was to work with him. This guy is in serious trouble. He will be in trouble as soon as [coach or general manager] sees him tonight…they will think you are shoving it up their [fanny]. Maybe you should call [general manager] as a pre-emptive strike but talk to Warren first."

Wow, Colin Campbell is MAD at Dean Warren, seemingly for a specific call. Obviously, from the e-mail, Dean Warren is about to officiate a game with a team he's just made very angry. Of course, with names and dates redacted, it would be impossible to figure out when this occurred. Fortunately, we at Pass it to Bulis have noted that the court ruling supplies the date for us:

"The first contact which occurred after Mr. Warren’s election to the OA executive was on October 23, 2006. The names of players, coaches, club officials and teams have been redacted."

Splendid! This e-mail happened on October 23. From the comment, "He will be in trouble as soon as [coach or general manager] sees him tonight," it's clear that this refers to a game Warren was going to officiate on the 23rd. In other words, this game, between the Florida Panthers and the Atlanta Thrashers. Warren has clearly done something to anger one of these two teams recently.

So what was Dean Warren's mistake that was so egregious that Campbell was furious he'd be sent back to officiate another game with the same teams? The only other time so far that season that Warren had been at a Panthers or Thrashers game was on October 21st, between the two of them. It was a home-and-home series. This is the box score for that game.

So what, right? As Greg Wyshynski has pointed out, part of Colin Campbell's job is to assist the Director of Officiating in oversight of the referees. The only problem is, Gregory Campbell was playing for the Panthers, so Colin Campbell was complaining about a penalty that may have cost his son the game.

As Tyler Dellow pointed out in this later post, Bill Daly seemed pretty certain that this kind of thing wouldn't occur:

"Because of the potential for a conflict of interest, or more importantly a perceived conflict of interest, the League has implemented various structural protections that prohibit Colie from having any oversight or disciplinary authority relating to any game in which his son, Gregory, plays. Its always fair to question and criticize League decisions as being wrong, but not on the basis that they aren't justly and fairly arrived at."

Well, maybe Colin Campbell really was just ranting to a friend, right? Wrong. Walkom responded:

"Spoke with [general manager] and spoke with dean …."

So Colin Campbell's ranting led directly to the referee at that game getting a call from his boss about it, right before officiating another of the games in which Colin Campbell's son, Gregory, played. Despite Daly's carefully-worded insistence that the rules say Colin Campbell can't influence the officiating in his son's games, the evidence clearly shows that he has.

It gets worse, as the penalty that had Colin Campbell up in arms about Marc Savard was actually called on his son Gregory. Here was the NHL disciplinarian's reaction. I have numbered portions of it for easy reference:

"A bend in the road is a dead end if you round the corner and Dean Warren is standing there. Your answer re: his high stick calls and the score of the game were [the feces of an equine]. 1) The 3rd call on [player] was while they were down 5 on 4 and on a def zone face off vs that little fake artist [player] I had him in [city] biggest faker going. And Warren fell for it when he grabbed his face on a face off. Your supposed to see the act, not call the embellishing act. 2) Dean Warren has to go with [referee] There must be a way to get rid of this guy. Is there a way we can tract (sic) and total minors called by referees this year. We could then get the minors they call per game. … or with 2 [referees on the ice] it is impossible? 3) Warren and [referee] out of [club’s] games. Give them to [referees]."

Wow, Campbell is mad here, too. By far, the most-discussed part of the e-mail was part 1. People unfortunately tended to look at what it means and not what it is. Don't look at it to determine Campbell's opinion of Marc Savard and if that would cause him to act with bias. Look what Campbell is saying to the then-current Director of Officiating, and his subordinate: Marc Savard is a horrible faker. This comment is clearly influenced both by his coaching of Savard in New York and his anger over his son's being assessed a bad penalty. Neither of these things should be factors when talking to the boss of every NHL referee. Suppose that Campbell's comments here are biased, and that they in some way influenced Stephen Walkom's decisions as head of officiating? Wouldn't that, right there, constitute an abuse of his position?

But it gets worse. Here, in this e-mail, Campbell states "Dean Warren has got to go" (2). Cats and kittens, here we have direct evidence that Campbell's decision that Dean Warren must be fired was influenced by a call he made against his son. Right there. It's fortunate for Campbell that the names and dates were redacted and that Warren's attorney apparently didn't catch who this call was made against, because in a wrongful termination suit, this e-mail would be solid gold. "Your honor, this e-mail proves that I was fired not for making a mistake, but for making a mistake that negatively affected the son of the Director of Hockey Operations."

But even if that wasn't the only factor in his firing, look what happens at the end of the message (3). Colin Campbell says, straight up, Warren isn't allowed to referee a certain club (presumably either Florida or Boston). Let's make sure to get the word out to all NHL'ers. Get a bad call against you? Colin Campbell will be there to make sure that referee never calls your game again. Or does that privilege only apply to those who are his son?

Keep in mind that according to the court case, the first e-mails in October are when things seemed to go sour for Dean Warren. Also consider that after these events came this little gem, an e-mail from Campbell to Walkom with apparently some video of Dean Warren:

"Can we use this [dookie] [the emailed clip] to remove him or is there an HR excuse."

This e-mail makes it fairly clear that Campbell is already trying to get Warren fired. He's asking if he can use the clip to accomplish the goal of removing Warren. The question of whether Warren should be removed is not discussed.

Also, keep in mind Steve Walkom's comments regarding potentially using numbers to remove Dean Warren:

"I think we have that data but it may work in his favour. That why I'm against data."

So here's a conversation in which Steve Walkom is telling an angry Colin Campbell that the numbers don't justify firing Dean Warren, and trying to help his boss to find an excuse to fire him. Does Walkom really think Warren deserves to go, or is he just trying to please his superior?

Again, let's look back to some things that were said about this. Here's Bob McKenzie on the e-mails to Walkom:

"As for the emails, and sending them to Stephen Walkom, that's inappropriate behavior, and it gives the perception. Now, nothing was ever acted on, that we're aware of, because the referees that Colin Campbell complained about to Walkom, they're still working in the National Hockey League."

That's simply not true. In fact, two of the three e-mails we have about calls on Gregory Campbell refer to Dean Warren. Not only was he fired, these very same e-mails were used in trial as evidence of Warren's shortcomings as a referee. In other words, they were shown in court as the reason Dean Warren was fired. Not only can we say that one of the referees in these e-mails lost his job, the NHL asserts that he lost his job because of incidents in these e-mails.

Greg Wyshynski:

"You can't tell the fans and media that Gregory Campbell is persona non grata in your role as NHL VP of hockey operations and then inquire about penalties he's been given with an email to the director of officiating. You're saying one thing, doing another, and "just a hockey dad venting" doesn't absolve that; if he's off-limits then he's off-limits."

Well put. Unfortunately, it goes farther than "inquiring" about penalties Gregory Campbell's been given. So far, he's had a referee removed from games because of a penalty regarding his son. He also may have attempted to negatively influence a player's reputation among officials while angry for his son, and he's used these penalties to get at least one NHL referee fired.

That's more than just egg on your face. Let's hope Dean Warren sues for wrongful termination again, this time for unfair favoritism.

But of all these e-mails, perhaps the most damning is the third one. This one was, again, from Colin Campbell to Stephen Walkom:

"Game not televised. Radio announcers said it was a [male bovine manure] penalty…you need to find out for me. How…I don’t know but this was awful. 1:30 left in 2-1 game for [team] and [player] scored with 2 second left to tie it up them won in OT. [MAKE LOVE TO]"

Now, Colin Campbell insisted this message was just banter, but Walkom clearly took the "you need to find out for me" seriously. He responded that he'd find out. Less than an hour later, Campbell is nagging him about it.

"Did you find out anything? It was [another referee] that made the call. Keep Warren and gas this [doodoo]head. 90 seconds left and he calls a weak penalty…tripping. Makes me sick. If I was at the game I would have had to fine me."

So a couple points on this. First, and most damning, is that Campbell is clearly very upset about a call he never saw. He heard from the radio announcers, he says, that the call was bad. Are we to believe that every time Colin Campbell hears someone claim a call is bad, he immediately e-mails the Director of Officiating to investigate? Absolutely not. Further, Campbell says to "gas" the guy who made the call. While he's indicated that he hasn't seen the play, he's willing to go after the referee who made the call.

Tyler Dellow's words on this e-mail:

"The player who was penalized? None other than Gregory Campbell. Brian Pochmara and Don VanMassenhoven were the referees in that game and both are, as far as I can tell, still NHL referees."

So no one got fired over this call. I guess that's good, because it's a dangerous precedent for the Director of Hockey Operations to get a referee fired over a call, then watch it. Still, once again, this e-mail is regarding Gregory Campbell, and daddy is very upset when referees call penalties on him.

So what questions SHOULD people like Bob McKenzie, Elliotte Friedman, Greg Wyshynski and other big name hockey commentators be asking? How about these:

• Is it true that, as was suggested by the ruling of Warren v. National Hockey League, that penalties called against Gregory Campbell were a major factor in his father's pushing for Warren's firing?
• How often does Colin Campbell bar referees from officiating for certain clubs after a bad call?
• How often does Colin Campbell direct his subordinate, the Director of Officiating, to investigate calls against his son?
• How often do calls against Gregory Campbell influence his father's decisions regarding which NHL referees should be let go?
• How often does Colin Campbell complain to the Director of Officiating about calls he has not even seen, and what percentage of these incidents related to his son?

Forget Marc Savard. Forget Matt Cooke. Colin Campbell is unfairly using his position as the Director of Officiating's superior to help his son, and to fire at least one referee who's wronged him. That's where the story should be.

NOTE: Speaking of corrections, this blog has been edited. Originally, it erroneously speculated that the call from October 21st had been one on Gregory Campbell. After I wrote it, I read Tyler Dellow's follow-up, in which he referenced a comment of mine, and a later comment that wasn't visible after his site went down. The later comment, from Colby Cosh, demonstrated that the penalty that had Colin Campbell up in arms on October 23rd was not called on his son, but his son's teammate, Martin Gelinas. I had previously narrowed down the call to be either on Gregory Campbell or Martin Gelinas, and Cosh's clever investigation of headlines from that night determined which it was. However, as Dellow pointed out, this is still a clear instance of Campbell directly affecting his son's games, which Bill Daly insisted never occurs. While the point remains very-much intact, it would be criminal not to fix factual errors whenever they're caught. Much credit to Dellow and Cosh for their superb work.

Rypien Story Goes From Ridiculous to Ridiculously Ridiculous

Not since Abe Lincoln has someone been vilified so quickly.

The media buffet on this Rick Rypien incident only opened last night, but I'm already full. It's been wall to wall Rypper today, as everyone wants to weigh in on the abomination he committed last night. The good news is that the incident has overshadowed the abomination the Canucks committed last night. The bad news? Rick Rypien just passed Killer Moth on the list of the worst villains ever, and he's closing in on Calendar Man. Rick Rypien would like you to believe he's not a baby eater. But he's never gone on record saying he isn't. Maybe it's because he's too busy eating babies. Yes, his public crucifixion is getting a little ridiculous, especially when you consider that he merely grabbed the fan. He didn't hit him; he didn't bite him; he didn't poke him in the eye.

He just grabbed him. For about three seconds. And yet the fan is threatening to sue.

Rypien deserves to be suspended. You can't do what he did--it was stupid, and he deserves to sit out a few games. But when he touched that fan (James Engquist), it was dumb on dumb. This fan is a stupid guy.

I didn't want to weigh in on this. I feel like we covered all there is to this last night in the IWTG. But, like Rypien, I've been provoked by James Engquist who, in his interview with Michael Russo (quoted below) gave himself away as a certified gomer. Here is James describing what instigated the incident:

"I was just standing straight up applauding as he was getting kicked out. He was out of control. And then I said, 'Way to be professional,' and he obviously didn’t care for that comment [...]

Few would care for that comment, you pinhead. James. Rypien is a man who makes a living punching people in the face. He was, in your own words "out of control" with anger, and you decided to stand up, applaud, and make a snide comment? A comment about professionalism to an enraged fighter. Sounds to me like you deserved to see his profession first-hand. A better option would have been to not infuriate an already irate pugilist. The first guy I punch when I'm being kicked out of somewhere is the guy who makes a snide comment once I'm no longer restrained. Here is James describing the fear he felt:

[He] decided to grab me and almost dragged me over the rail. If my brother wasn’t grabbing me and the other player wasn't grabbing him, he probably would have dragged me over the edge."

Man, that is a whole lot of grabbing going on in this story. That must have been terrifying for you, James. Had he succeeded in dragging you over the edge, as you claim (despite the video showing you were never even close) you would have been dragged over the edge. I don't know what happens next, but I'll bet it involves you being briefly on the other side of the edge.

"This is a crazy incident. I’ve seen a lot of hockey in my day, and I’ve never seen someone actually come into the stands and assault a fan," said Engquist.

Really? You've seen a lot of hockey and you've never seen this? Because that's what you're describing, and it's not what happened to you. Rypien didn't come into the stands and he didn't assault you. He grabbed you. Apart from increasing the value of your hockey jersey in online auctions, he accomplished very little when he touched you for three seconds.

Engquist said he is "definitely seeking legal representation. ... I was assaulted, that's just the bottom line."

No you weren't. You were touched. I've seen children grab the hem of their mother's housedress harder. Sadly, I'm sure there's a waaahmbulance-chaser out there, willing to slap a neck brace on you and claim Rypien dislocated your spine, but you should know that you just went from folk hero to total loser in one sentence.

Assault? Please. You were hit harder by the fans you high-fived on your way to better seats. You're fine, James. Let it go, like Rypien did, three seconds after he grabbed you.

And if this does go to court, let the record show that you lied about having seen a lot of hockey, since you've never seen the Milbury/O'Reilly incident. What else are you lying about, James? Better keep your stories straight....

Season-long Scavenger Hunt!

I can't think of a relevant picture to a scavenger hunt, so here's Don Cherry apparently telling a scary story.

Technically season previews are supposed to come before the beginning of the season, but I was waiting to find out who was the Captain. It’s too bad, as one of the things on my list already happened the first day of the season. I’d better get this posted before anything else comes true. For the record, Bob McKenzie's blog about the Ivanans fight doesn't count.

This is a game for all our readers to play during the season. There will be no prize except my respect, which is as famously difficult to earn as it is famously easy to buy. For the duration of the season, feel free to join me on a scavenger hunt of sorts. Compile a list, if you can, of links, videos, or screenshots of the following things.

Some of these are supposed to be hard to find, but some of them are ridiculously easy. I’ll have fun looking for all of them. If you find some good examples, send links to qrisjohnson@gmail.com and I may post updates with some of the best ones.

Writers hunt:

• Bob McKenzie beginning a blog with a few carefully-worded paragraphs trying to avoid seeming wussy before complaining about violence in hockey
• Derek Jory comparing hockey to something nonsensical in his loveable way
• Dwayne “Eklund” Klessel taking a moment to talk about the game of hockey (instead of just rumors) without quoting some named or unnamed source to remind everyone he’s connected
• Iain MacIntyre singing the praises of a Vancouver Canuck without qualification
• Damien Cox somehow finding a new low in his blind, ridiculous criticism of the Canucks
• An instance in which TSN could easily have made a stupid pun in a headline, but chose not to (if you find one, send it to the TSN web site and they may very well allow you to take over as web editor)

Articles in General hunt:

• A Vancouver-based article blaming Henrik for a loss and questioning whether his receiving the captaincy was a mistake
• A Vancouver-based article from the same source lauding Henrik Sedin’s exceptional leadership skills and praising the choice of making him Captain
• A demonstrable example of a mainstream blog or news article using a creative nickname or phrase first seen on Pass it to Bulis (i.e. wizardous sedinerie). This blog sets trends, make no mistake
• An article or blog predicting the Canucks to miss the playoffs
• An article or blog predicting the Maple Leafs will make the Eastern Conference Finals
• An article or blog predicting the Maple Leafs will make the Western Conference Finals
• An article turning the last name of a player into a verb somehow
• Speculation that Cory Schneider may steal the No. 1 job in Vancouver
• Mention of hockey in political article thanks to Sarah Palin

Video hunt:

• Alex Ovechkin getting rubbed the wrong way by some sort of criticism and being unable to hide it
• Keith Ballard speaking to, seeming to threaten or “accidentally” making contact with Roberto Luongo during a game
• Don Cherry accidentally pronouncing a name correctly, when he usually butchers it
• Video of Kesler or Bieksa making fun of a teammate’s personality where you can’t tell for sure if they’re kidding
• Glenn Beck comparing a hockey player to Hitler
• Mike Gillis talking about plans for the future without using the words “moving forward”
• An interview with Derek Boogaard that is evidence that he hasn’t been suffering post-concussion syndrome since before the lockout
• Pierre Maguire getting tripped up using the word “monster” to describe Jonas “the Monster” Gustavsson
• An interviewer baiting Jason Spezza with jokes in attempt to get more golden footage of his laugh
• James Duthie going an entire five minutes without making a painful joke (bonus points if it’s “The Quiz,” although this is technically impossible)

Forum hunt:

• Dwayne “Eklund” Klessel being seriously cited as a credible source
• Pass it to Bulis being seriously cited as a credible source
• A bona fide Panthers fan suggesting another trade with the Canucks
• A bona fide Leafs fan conceding they probably won’t make the playoffs
• A bona fide Blue Jackets fan
• A post insisting, after one solid game, that a Canucks player “needs a new nickname”
• Ironic misspelling of Don Cherry’s name
• Insistence that the Canucks should have drafted Wellwood
  

If Harrison or Skeeter have more they'd like to add, feel free. I'll be engaging in this hunt all season, and invite the entire internet to do the same.

This is Not a Story: Cody Hodgson Edition

Don't worry, Cody, not all Canucks fans are drama queens.

The latest Canucks "news" making waves throughout the media is the drama surrounding whether Cody Hodgson will appear in the Young Stars Tournament that starts this Sunday. The Team 1040 has reiterated every single "Sports Update" the news that Cody Hodgson will be undergoing a medical evaluation by the Canucks and may not participate in the tournament at all! What terrible news! But what if the news you're reporting isn't actually news?

The Province's Canucks blog, The White Towel, initially made a fuss about Cody Hodgson not being in Vancouver yet, an absurd complaint as he's finishing a training regimen with Gary Roberts, who's swiftly become one of the most respected NHL trainers after some impressive results from Steven Stamkos last season. But that's not where the problems started. The issue arose from this quote from Laurence Gilman:

“For any player, we want to make sure he's fit to play,” said Gilman. “We haven't had a chance to conduct a (recent) medical evaluation (on Hodgson).”

This rather innocent quote is what started it all. The Team 1040 has been "reporting" every hour the alarming "news" that Cody Hodgson may not participate in the Young Stars Tournament until he passes a medical evaluation. The Kurtenbloggers took the opportunity to rehash every twist and turn in the Hodgson story, because of this latest "news."

So why is this not a story? Because every single prospect will be undergoing a medical evaluation before participating in prospects camp. Cody Hodgson is not undergoing some out of the ordinary medical evaluation because of his back problems last season; it's the same medical evaluation that all of the Canucks prospects will be participating in. Here's a relevant quote from the prospect camp press release:

27 players are scheduled to report to Rogers Arena on Friday, September 10th for pre-training camp medicals and testing.

That's right: 27 players are scheduled for pre-training camp medicals and testing. Twenty-seven. Not just Hodgson. Clearly, Gilman was asked a question specifically about Hodgson and he responded with the truth, that he would be undergoing the standard medical evaluation before participating in training camp. He even specified that they would do the same "for any player."

This is not a story. Stop trying to make it one.

I Hate the TSN Web Editor

Dear TSN Web Editor:

This crap needs to stop. We all were already aware of how Carey Price's last name is also the word for a cost for something, and many of us even noted the irony that Price and the Habs had so much difficulty agreeing on a "price" for his services.

I am not a professional journalist. I am not above bad jokes. I consider this kind of pun to be below even me, however.

Seriously, it's not that being funny is unprofessional. It's that trying so hard and failing is unbecoming. TWO ridiculous puns on the first page? Can't you guys pretend to be journalists?

The Captain C (captaincy): In Response to Qris, Continuing to Beat That Horse

First things first: Qris, Skeeter, whichever one of you added the "necroequinicide" tag deserves to be patted on the back, hard, and then have that backpatting transition into a solid beating on par with the one the horse is getting. That is hilarious and absolutely unforgivable. Don't do it again. But do. Always do it.

This post is in response to Qris's post. I was originally going to leave it as a comment, but then I kept having things to say. My brain is on fire. This is a rant:

You're right, Qris. Up until now, Skeeter and I have avoided the captaincy talk because we feel similarly. But now that the box is opened, I'm going to rant about the captain's C and about leadership.

What frustrates me is that this whole debate is because we haven't been able to beat the Blackhawks these last two seasons. I'm frustrated that we haven't been able to beat the Blackhawks, too, and I'm especially frustrated because anybody with half a brain will recognize that the Canucks were not better than the Blackhawks the last two seasons. Yes, they lost to a better team. Two years in a row. That will likely continue to happen if the Blackhawks continue to be better than us. That should be the story because that's the only fact that matters. But, if you refuse to face the facts, there's a lot of moronic stories about why it is that this team can't get past the second round. One of the worst is that it's not the talent assembled; it's leadership.

Is it leadership? It's leadership, right? It's probably leadership. It couldn't possibly be that we aren't a good enough hockey team. That would be ludicrous. We've had the best defense in the NHL for the past seventeen seasons! (And seriously, the Vancouver media says that every year.)

Remember the European captain debate? Remember how hard the press beat that horse before Lidstrom won the award? Well gosh darn it, it turns out a European captain can win the Stanley Cup! Of course, it never had anything to do with whether or not the captain was European. It was a stupid, bizarrely racist angle, and a non-story.

The media loves these bogus captaincy stories. Hell, the media loves these status quo non-stories. They love to question anomalies, as though there's a set formula for winning championships (why don't the Canucks just adhere to that?) outside of being the best. My theory: there are some stupid people in the media, and until somebody does something in a way that's never been done, their most oft-repeated line is that it can't be done that way. Again, this is because they are stupid.

Leadership, too, is such an intangible quality. I know a few people who have a Master's in Leadership. It seems to me like this degree might be like having a Master's in Acting. Does it make them better at it? No, natural ability and actual practice does. Does it make them think they're better at it? Frustratingly, yes. Everybody wants to believe there's a formula for this, but, in truth, the formula they're sold on is usually just copying what's worked in the past.

I work for Human Kinetics department of a university. I heard a guy tell me the worst thing about coaching seminars is that the coaches typically just talk about players they've coached, rather than teaching how to be the best coach ever. I'll tell you why that is: there's no formula. It's just experience. So they talk about their experiences.

The sports media forgets this. When we lose, it's because the team leaders weren't leading the right way. Again, there is no right way. For all we know, Luongo has not been leading the wrong way. We just seem him play hockey. The truth is that nobody really knows the right way to lead, but when a team succeeds, we chalk it up to good leadership. If Luongo keeps the C and the Canucks win the Stanley Cup, then it was the right decision to keep the C with him, right? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe he's not the best choice. Maybe that's not why we win. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the abilities of the team, could it?

One problem is that we're so influenced by sports movies. We've all seen that kid quote the monologue from "Miracle", inspired as he is. It's an inspirational piece. But come on, is that really why the USA won the gold medal in 1980? It seems that's what the media would have us believe. It's like the players playing the game are secondary to the guy who stands on a soapbox and delivers the pregame speech.

Is it a wonder that the captain is usually the best player on the team? No. It's because playing well is leading. Contributing to a game win is leading. Maybe that's why, when a team is ahead in points, people say they're "leading". Leadership is natural and it has more to do with playing the game well than anything else.

Here's the kicker: for me, leadership has nothing to do with "The C", and ergo, the captaincy means very little. Are you telling me that other team leaders are stifled because they didn't got a little letter stitched onto their jersey? Right. We want Henrik as captain, we want Kesler as captain. Why? Because they'll be the best leaders? No, it's because they play the best. Last season, they were arguably more important to the team than Luongo. That's more than enough leadership.

"The C" hardly matters, other than as an honour to a certain player. Personally, I wish the team would just do it in private. Let the team pick a captain, keep it to themselves. The media doesn't need to know. Don't stitch a C on anybody's jersey. I hate the C. In Vancouver, and other hockey cities, it's a huge well of bogus stories, but, in truth, it means very little. So thanks, Qris, for pointing this out.