Buried inside this little gem of a column is the that fact that the officials called icing on the Devils with under a minute left to play in game 2 while they were SHORTHANDED. That miscall has a potentailly bigger impact on the this series than the whole Avery discussion, which had zero affect on the outcome of the game.

The story in the NHL during the playoffs, as usual, is the lack of quality officials to go around (the two ref system has made this even worse). The outrage shouldn’t be directed at clarifying the rules so that the game doesn’t become a mockery, but the inability of the refs to call the rule book as written.

Posted by Hockey1919 from Montreal on 04/16/08 at 08:53 AM ET

I don’t understand how it can be an “unconstitutional adoption of a new rule” when the Ref warned both benches that if the act should continued that an unsportsmanlike penalty would be called? However Larry Brooks has never let the facts get in the way of a good ranting.

Posted by jkrdevil on 04/16/08 at 09:01 AM ET

As much as I hate to agree with Larry Brooks, I think I have to agree with Larry Brooks here…

And jkrdevil, I believe Brooks’s point is that it’s an unconstitutional adoption of the rule whether Colin Campbell or the one-ice official is the one making the change… The NHL Board of Governors are the ones responsible for messing with the rules, and changing stuff in the middle of the playoffs is weak, weak, weak, whether you agree with the substance of the change or not…

The practical effect is likely to be minimal, as Drury probably took care of any possibility Avery’s ever gonna do something like that again, but the principle is what’s important… The NHL already has too many stupid rules (see Exhibit A, the instigator penalty), and this definitely sends the wrong message on the issue…

Posted by mudshark from Divetown, Colorado on 04/16/08 at 09:37 AM ET

Fact is, the NHL’s unconstitutional adoption of a new rule in the middle of the playoffs without bothering to gain the required unanimous consent of the Board of Governors - a clarification; right, sure - is a far greater scandal than anything Avery did on Sunday.

Larry, while you were busy looking up Potter Stewart on Wikipedia, perhaps you should have taken the time to learn the definition of the word ‘fact’.

Avery’s antics received attention outside hockey circles. Negative attention. Seeing it, non-fans roll their eyes and think hockey’s a joke. Please point me to any ‘scandal’ regarding the rule change being covered by the mainstream press. Take your time, I’ll wait…

While we can debate the impact of this episode until the cows come home, even someone as delusional as yourself can probably see how this does nothing to grow the game. That probably matters little to the Rangers, whose fanbase makes running (and apparently, writing about) the team largely idiot-proof. But some people out there are trying to elevate the NHL above its current bush-league status. Would you consider Avery to be one of them?

Posted by shep from california on 04/16/08 at 10:55 AM ET

This is dumb. No matter what you think of Avery.

Avery never touched Brodeur.

Brodeur should have got a penalty for sacking him and punch him.

Screening the goaltender is part of the game.

Avery should keep his stick down though....

Posted by Laker from dapuddle on 04/16/08 at 10:59 AM ET

You know it’s funny.

If a player did that to anyone else on the ice, it’d be called high-sticking....

Posted by Primis on 04/16/08 at 11:13 AM ET

Why? Avery never touched him, never even made it like he was threatening to touch him. He was 4’ away from brodeur…

Posted by Laker from Williams Lae on 04/16/08 at 11:43 AM ET

We are not debating the second ammendment here the rule is simple, but not clear:

A “high stick” is one which is carried above the height of the opponent’s shoulders. A player is permitted accidental contact on an opponent if the act is committed as a normal windup or follow through of a shooting motion.

Which measn you can high stick someone if you are following through on a shot. It doesn’t mention contact until section a: which states contact is a penalty.

Any contact made by a stick on an opponent above the shoulders is prohibited and a minor shall be imposed subject to section (b) of this Rule.

So section a states that if you make contact outside of a follow through it is mandatory for it to be a penalty. That doesn’t really clarify if carrying your stick carelessly above the shoulder by itself is sufficient.

We see players call for the puck with the stick raised and that is not a penalty, we also see a player raise his stick when checking a player and get a high stick even if no contact between the stick and opposing player is made. The ridiculous also happens when a player falls and is hit in the face by the opposing team player carrying the stick at waist level, but high sticking is called since you are always responsible for your stick and it is the opponents shoulder that deterimines the height of the stick.

In retrospect the 2nd ammendment is easy to figure out compared to this.

Posted by Hockey1919 from Montreal on 04/16/08 at 11:59 AM ET

Seeing it, non-fans roll their eyes and think hockey’s a joke.

Non-fans think hockey is a joke for a lot of reasons - Sean Avery isn’t even at the top of the list.

He acted like an idiot and looked like he was imitating the mating dance of some kind of exotic jackass-bird, but it wasn’t a penalty, wasn’t a “stain on the integrity of the game” and wasn’t a “disgrace.” It was just a dumb stunt.  I don’t think it was needed to get all flustered and pass a rule against it since by turning his back on the puck he completely took himself out of the play by eliminating any chance for him to deflect a puck.  He was no doubt an effective screen, but so would a two-metre potted plant have been.  Once he teammates pointed out he could be more effective actually trying for a tip instead of waving his stick like a monkey on meth - or he took a rising shot to the back of his head because he wasn’t paying atttention - that would have been the end of it without fussing about the rules.

He’s getting an awful lot of attention just for doing something stupid.

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 04/16/08 at 12:06 PM ET

Actually, even Brodeur admitted that Avery was being very effective by waving his stick and hands--he couldn’t see a thing.  The reason they didn’t score then and there was because they missed the net.  On a 5-on-3, there’s almost no chance of it giving the penalty killers a scoring chance.  It’s an effective and dangerous play, which is exactly why they had to issue the clarification.  The league got this one right.

Posted by Ryan from Toronto on 04/16/08 at 03:12 PM ET