jeff@dciem.UUCP (Jeff Richardson) (04/25/85)
> On the subject of the Islanders-Flyers - has anyone else noticed that the > Islanders never get a break from the officials this year. There were far > more penalty shots called against them than anyone else (sorry, I haven't > got the stats handy), and they always seem to get the borderline calls > against them. I realize I have a biased view but still ... Is the > league actively against them? And why? I haven't noticed any anti-Islander bias myself (I haven't really seen them play enough though), but other than the fact that a lot of people hate Billy Smith, I can think of a good reason for the league to be against the Islanders: They've won the Stanley Cup four of the last five years, and it's time for some other teams to get a crack at it. Only 9 of the 21 NHL teams have ever won the cup, and in the 18 years since expansion, only 5 different teams have won it (Montreal 8 times, Islanders 4, Boston & Philadelphia 2 each and Edmonton 1). That means that in 16 of the 21 NHL cities (counting the New Yorks at separate), there are a large number of grown-up hockey fans that have never seen their team win the cup, and most of these don't even have a significant regular season or playoff success to show for their years of devotion. I know the best team deserves to win and biased officiating is no way to equalise teams, but it's easy to lose interest watching the same team win year after year while you can't see any hope of your team challenging them in the forseeable future. One of the biggest problems with the NHL, in my opinion, is that with very few exceptions the good teams stay good while the bad teams stay bad. -- Jeff Richardson, DCIEM, Toronto (416) 635-2073 {linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd}!utcsrgv!dciem!jeff {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!dciem!jeff
lake@alberta.UUCP (Robert Lake) (04/29/85)
> On the subject of the Islanders-Flyers - has anyone else noticed that the > Islanders never get a break from the officials this year. There were far > more penalty shots called against them than anyone else (sorry, I haven't > got the stats handy), and they always seem to get the borderline calls > against them. I realize I have a biased view but still ... Is the > league actively against them? And why? I haven't noticed any anti-Islander bias myself. Sure the Islanders seem to take more penalties than other teams, but I think that is a direct result of the nature of their team and their style of play. I hate to keep sounding like a broken record, but the Islanders are a slow moving team which plays a tight, checking game. To me, this implies more penal- ties such as holding, hooking, elbowing, etc. When you can't skate with the best, the only recourse left is to drag them down with you. This whining about biased officiating reminds me of a friend I used to know back in the late '70s. He believed that the officials always seemed to favor the Montreal Canadiens. We all remember the speed the Canadiens had back then (especially against the Bruins), thus I think the above paragraph provides an explanation for that sentiment as well. For these reasons, I don't think the 'biased' refereeing has anything to do with dynasties (after all, the Canadiens did win the Cup 4 years in a row), but rather is a reflection on the skating skills various teams possess.
rick@ucla-cs.UUCP (04/30/85)
In article <1533@dciem.UUCP> jeff@dciem.UUCP ( Richardson) writes: >I haven't noticed any anti-Islander bias myself (I haven't really seen them >play enough though), but other than the fact that a lot of people hate Billy >Smith, I can think of a good reason for the league to be against the Islanders: >They've won the Stanley Cup four of the last five years, and it's time for >some other teams to get a crack at it. Only 9 of the 21 NHL teams have ever >won the cup, and in the 18 years since expansion, only 5 different teams have >won it (Montreal 8 times, Islanders 4, Boston & Philadelphia 2 each and >Edmonton 1). That means that in 16 of the 21 NHL cities (counting the New Yorks >at separate), there are a large number of grown-up hockey fans that have >never seen their team win the cup, and most of these don't even have a >significant regular season or playoff success to show for their years of >devotion. I know the best team deserves to win and biased officiating is no >way to equalise teams, but it's easy to lose interest watching the same team win >year after year while you can't see any hope of your team challenging them >in the forseeable future. One of the biggest problems with the NHL, in my >opinion, is that with very few exceptions the good teams stay good while the >bad teams stay bad. There was an interesting article in the Sports Illustrated last year about the phenomena of hockey teams staying at particular levels for long periods of time. I will try to dig it up at home. But I sure hope that the league isn't out to get the Islanders because they have been successful! That isn't much of a way for a professional league to act. I really doubt that there is a conscious effort on anyone's part to nail the Isles, but maybe the officials watch them too closely. It could be Smith's reputation precedes them. But the Islanders lost 2 important (crucial?) playoff games this year on "questionable" goals when the goalie (Hrudey - who doesn't keep the net clear with his stick) was taken out of the play. -- Rick Gillespie rick@ucla-cs ...!{cepu|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|ucbvax}!ucla-cs!rick "She turned me into a newt! . . . I got better."