For Max, For Hockey

With so much being said and written about the Zdeno Chara hit on Max Pacioretty, it probably makes no difference for me to weigh in on the topic. In large part because, according to the league and the vast majority of big network hockey insiders and analysts, I must recuse myself from having an opinion because I am a long-time fan of the Canadiens.

Nonetheless, there are a few things that I am finding impossible to accept in the days following this incident, and many arguments that need to be addressed.

Let me first express my thoughts on some practical matters. First off, I don't think the current police investigation is useful. We all know where this will end up and frankly it is a waste of police resources that ought to be directed at real criminal activity. Secondly, Air Canada's threat to pull its advertising from the league, while newsworthy, was in my opinion ill-advised and poorly executed. I believe it would have been more effective for the carrier to first garner support among fellow sponsors and together express their concern to the league rather than make a threat in which no one believes the airline was prepared to follow through.

Third, and this may make me rather unpopular, I do not believe Zdeno Chara to be a dirty player. As much as the evidence from prior games suggests a vendetta-like attitude, I simply can't believe he would have wished for this outcome. Hockey is a rough sport, and hard hitting is a big part of that. I do believe he made a huge error in judgement, and I think he knows it.

I would like to address some of the criticism and analysis from some individuals in the media outside of Montreal. Many of these individuals believed that the Chara hit was not atypical of a hockey play, and had it been elsewhere on the ice there would be no discussion. Many also believed that despite this knowledge the league would likely issue at least a minor suspension. That did not happen.

The outrage amongst fans and media in Montreal has been played-up significantly in this debate, and has been used to undermine the severity of this incident. The argument being that because this happened to one of our own, naturally we would see the issue of dangerous plays in the league with a bias. My response is unequivocally yes, we are more hurt and shocked because this was our player. This incident happened in front of fans, Pacioretty's parents, and our children. I have been a Canadiens fan for forty years, of course I am upset.

I have also been a hockey fan for forty years as well. The question has been asked rhetorically, where were Canadiens fans when Matt Cooke levelled Marc Savard? Where were Canadiens fans when a Guillaume Latendresse illegal hit ended Rob DiMaio's career? Believe it or not, we were just as shocked, and in the case of the latter, embarrassed and ashamed.

There seems to be a surprising lack of understanding of Canadiens fans among many of the media people outside of this city. Have they not figured out by now that this fan base is more critical of its own team than anywhere else in the league? While Habs fans are passionate about their team, they also have a deep appreciation and knowledge of the game of hockey. I dare-say, the average Habs fan knows more about line combinations, ice-time and game strategy than fans in Florida, San Jose or even Boston.

The sports reporters, analysts and insiders have been far to quick to dismiss this incident as simply a hockey play, and just as quick to assume the anger and frustration felt in this city is just a blind affection for a team and nothing more. I would contend that there is a similar type of bias at work here. Because we are Habs fans we are incapable of thinking or saying anything other than that which blows this issue out of proportion. That is tantamount to taking the notion of impartiality and twisting it to fit your own viewpoint.

Well, here are the proportions of the issue, a player was sent to hospital with a fractured vertebrae and a severe concussion for what is being described as a hockey play. Am I exaggerating the truth?

Let me get back to Chara. As I stated earlier, I don't believe him to be a dirty player. I may not like the fact that our team has to play against him, but that has more to do with the fact that he's good. As rival teams go, I like the Bruins. I like the city of Boston, and yes I'll admit I like Bruins fans too. Why? Because they are as passionate as Habs fans. This is a rivalry as old as the league itself, and for the most part it's been an entertaining one. It's also been tough. Cheap shots, hard hits and chippy play are the hallmarks of Montreal-Boston games. I could do without the extracurricular jabbing and trash-talk, but otherwise I enjoy a good Bruins-Habs game.

The issue at hand is this. An increasing number of dangerous and illegal plays has resulted in devastating injuries to some of the league's best, and most entertaining players. These injuries have been working up to a deadly crescendo in recent years and I believe culminated with the injury to Pacioretty. I have not heard from a single person watching that game, no matter which team you support or where you are from, who looked upon Pacioretty's motionless body lying prostrate on the ice and was not sick. Let's just leave team allegiance and prejudgement aside and focus on that.

League rules are very clear on certain issues. If a player tries to clear a puck and accidentally sends it over the boards, it is a penalty, regardless of intent. If you have a high stick, even if it flies up accidentally, and the stick hits another player in the head, it is an automatic penalty. A four minute penalty if the action draws blood, again regardless of intent.

Chara's hit on Pacioretty pushed him into a stanchion (turnbuckle) and caused a serious injury. If we were to follow the reasoning governing the two previously cited rules, a player must, at all times, be in control of his body during play, regardless of intent. If we were to apply the same reasoning behind the high-sticking rule, if said action results in an injury, the penalty should be more severe.

By downplaying the severity of Chara's action, intentional or not, the league has given tacit permission to players for this action to occur again. As a fan of hockey, this is unacceptable, and it is a serious miscue by the league.

You can dislike Habs fans, you can even dislike the city, it's irrelevant with regards to this issue. But if you were a witness to what happened in Tuesday's game and, with a clear conscience, can say that this is just part of the game of hockey, then I submit that it is not Canadiens fans that have lost touch with reality, it is you.

Have a safe weekend.

Charlie's Darker Angels

As one of many bloggers in the overcrowded blogosphere spewing out personal observations and opinions, I am often challenged to find topics that either have not already been covered relentlessly in the media, or to find a new angle on that same story. In the strange case of Charlie Sheen, it's almost impossible to achieve latter, and just as impossible to avoid the former.

Sheen's apparent sojourn from reality, be it drug induced or otherwise, is perfect fodder for the multi-billion dollar tabloid news industry. It is a veritable cache of diamonds in the usual scrapheap of celebrity narcissism. Sheen's rants are a gushing oil well of soundbytes, and as the author rightfully contends (for different reasons) are pure gold.

What's troubling in all of this, is that the story has becoming so deeply entrenched in the current news cycle, it's hard not to address it. It's provided more that a few entertainers, and even smart-asses like myself, great comic material. In fact there seems to be a rather long line up of media outlets feeding ravenously on the hype trough courtesy of Sheen's career meltdown.

I recently saw an ESPN documentary titled simply June 17, 1994. The film, part of ESPN Film's 30 for 30 series, focussed specifically on the police pursuit of O.J. Simpson in the now infamous 'White Ford Bronco.' The doc revisits the circus like atmosphere that fell upon the city of Los Angeles that day. People crowded onto overpasses and at the side of the freeway, cheering Simpson on. In a piece of news footage captured just after Simpson returned to his Brentwood estate, two people could be seen running gleefully down the street to witness the action. At the time, Simpson was in the back of the vehicle purportedly with a gun to his head, threatening suicide.

The O.J. Simpson story is not just a celebrity train wreck, it was about two violent murders. Yet somehow that aspect seems strangely secondary to the story. Something clearly changed in popular culture in the aftermath of the O.J. Simpson case, something that has widened the chasm between celebrities and the general public.

Since then, there have been more than a few career meltdowns, rebounds and relapses. Witness Britney Spears, Whitney Houston and the multiple career implosions of Mel Gibson, among others.

It's no surprise that when Joaquin Phoenix told the world in 2009 he was walking away from his successful acting career to become a hip-hop artist, celebrity-watchers bought into the ruse hook, line and sinker. It was a hoax of course, a creative deception to create the Casey Affleck mockumentary I'm Still Here, which followed the disastrous results of Phoenix's fake career choice. The film ultimately bombed, but the point was made that one more celebrity losing their marbles in the glare of the spotlight is virtually irresistible to media and entertainment consumers.

Charlie Sheen's predicament is just another, perhaps more fascinating, but no more unusual, celebrity tailspin. These days, knowing the extent to which celebrities will go to garner public attention (ie: sex tapes) who knows what's true any more? Maybe this just be another ruse for publicity's sake?

Should we even care?

Well, the ancient Greeks certainly enjoyed a good tragedy, and with today's technology we can watch it all unfold in the comfort of our living rooms. And since reality has become the new fiction, what's the harm?

I don't know Charlie Sheen the person. Not sure I want to. But because his reality is one I could never know, or understand, because he is rich beyond what any one of us could imagine, does that make it okay for me to dismiss him, or those around him?

Sheen's rambling speeches have, of late, sounded increasingly violent, and his self-portrayal as some form of earth-bound deity are enough to raise a few red flags. Maybe it's an act, can't say for sure, but this is a man with children and several devoted hangers-on, so what if it isn't? If this were someone without celebrity status, I doubt any one of us would find it very entertaining.

By now, our society ought to have figured out that mental illness, drug-induced or not, can lead to dangerous consequences if left untreated. I have known people who have lived with schizophrenia and bipolar disorders, and they will tell you that if this is the case, Sheen truly believes in what he is saying and that his actions will follow whatever that belief informs him to do. As the borders between delusion and reality eventually dissolve so too does the ability to distinguish between right from wrong.

People keep referring to this situation as a train wreck, but my concern is that the real wreck is yet to come.

I just don't want to be caught track-side cheering it on.