Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Fixing the Game

Expand Messages
  • Morey Holzman
    I m thinking about authoring a new book on the current state of the NHL, along with a historical perspective of how the NHL got to its current state. What I m
    Message 1 of 151 , Jul 3 10:10 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      I'm thinking about authoring a new book on the current state of the
      NHL, along with a historical perspective of how the NHL got to its
      current state.

      What I'm curious about, especially from some of the lurkers, is what
      you would do to fix the game.

      There are no wrong answers.

      Morey
    • William Underwood
      ... me ... 70 s ... during that era. The Kings fans didn t like him because he carried that to an extreme level seemingly every game he called in comparison
      Message 151 of 151 , Jul 14 8:46 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        >>> Maybe we can blame the NHL for
        >>> choosing Gilmore in the first place.

        >> Again I could say the same about most refs in the league in ANY ERA.
        > Every city has guys that they love and those that they despise! Find
        me
        > a ref that is approved of in every city and we ought to pout him in
        > charge of the UN!
        >
        > And Gilmour was hardly the only "let them play official" in the league
        > in that day! If that was not the case neither the Flyers of the mid
        70's
        > nor the Big Bad Bruins of years before would have had the success that
        >> they did.


        >You're right about Gilmour not being the only "let them play official"
        during that era. The Kings fans didn't like him because he carried that
        to
        an extreme level seemingly every game he called in comparison to all the
        other refs. The hockey seemed secondary with him as ref, with way too
        much
        of the "other" stuff allowed to go on during the game aside from a
        "token"
        >penalty now and then. And the Flyers were masters of the "other"
        stuff.

        Odd, fans in most other places had no more hatred of him thyan other
        refs.

        >> So Dana, the NHL was to put an anti Flyer ref in charge?

        >The NHL didn't necessarily have to put Bruce Hood in as ref. But why
        >Gilmour?

        Probably seniority, scheduling, rating...

        >I'm not the only fan from LA who wondered about the NHL's choice
        >to referee that game.

        There seemed little controversy in other places.

        >> Sure Gilmour's style was an advantage to the flyers. And had the game
        > been played in Europe, a similarly NON BIASED but competent European
        > official like say Dahlgren from Sweden would have been an edge to the
        >> Russians. You have to cope with these things like you do ice size!

        >I don't have any idea what the European refs were like. You see the 72
        Summit games were never broadcast in any media to Los Angeles. At best,
        perhaps the highlights may have made the news. I wasn't quite the
        diehard
        hockey fan at the time, but I couldn't remember hearing, seeing or
        reading
        anything at all about the Summit. So I went through the microfilms of
        the 2
        major LA newspapers during that time frame and overall there was no
        coverage
        of any of the games. I also scoured the TV Guide and couldn't find any
        of
        the games broadcast. I was never exposed locally (except the
        Olympics)to
        >international hockey till the 76 Canada Cup.

        I'm speaking of more than the Summit. I'm discussing European refs in
        general of the era. There is hardly the Canadian that went abroad that
        didn't discuss them! Generally they let little heavy contact go. They
        called boarding quite often by the sound.

        >
        >> But to call it a "fix" is off base. And I'm glad that you said what
        you
        >> did! Gilmour simply called his normal game. No oddities.

        >True. From a consistency standpoint, it seemed like a typical Gilmour
        called game. Does anyone know if the complete game is on video? I'm
        only
        seen a few snippets of the game (usually of the Russian team skating
        off)
        since watching the original broadcast. Considering how low my opinion
        is of
        Lloyd called games in comparison to all the other refs, I'm still
        suspicious
        of the NHL choosing him. Gilmour would be a fine ref - if both teams
        were
        >composed solely of choir boys! Otherwise ABG (anybody but Gilmour.)

        And we'd hear the same silly "fix" stuff if the official let the Flyers
        play their game. Why Gilmour? He was a senior official, well rated by
        the NHL itself, so why not? No team in the NHL had ever filed a protest
        against him.
        He was a well respected ref as a whole.

        >> 1-Hit on Kharlamov or not. Philly had the Soviets stymied. They WERE
        > using an effective tactic! Would we have them play non check hockey?
        > Would we tell them to tone down the hitting? Hitting is a part of
        > hockey! They did it and used a game plan that made it possible to do
        > effectively. We se it al of the time in EVERY sport, the ugly game
        plan
        > prevails over the pretty one with it's simplicity. We see
        international
        > soccer dominated by the 4-4-2 and the cattenaccio or varieties there
        of,
        > NO ONE uses a 4-2-4 anymore. In hockey we see trap teams like Jersey
        win
        > cups and more offensive teams bite the big one early. . It is NOTHING
        NEW!
        Hockey is a contact game, not
        > figure skating! The prettiest skaters don't always win. Had it been a
        7
        > game series with games in Europe, you would have seen NHL people
        howling
        > about Euro refereeing even if it had been fully competent but just the
        > Euro style. But I doubt that we would have pulled our team off the
        ice!

        > 2-Most NHL officials would have been in the Gilmour category. We just
        > tend to like to see refs dictate a game less here and we are more
        >> tolerant of physical play. I doubt very much that the NHL picked
        Gilmour
        special.

        >I don't mind good, hard but relatively clean physical play ala Scott
        Stevens, Rob Blake et al. That's different from Dupont and Van Impe in
        their woodchopper mode or the rest of the Flyers ganging up on whoever
        game
        >after game.

        And not all of it was "wood chopping". Like it or not, those guys threw
        plain old good clean hard hits too.

        As for the "ganging up", this generally happened when anyone touched
        Clark or the other team tried their tactics. Again, it was only
        effective if you LET IT. Teams like Montreal ultimately did not. At any
        rate, you really didn't see them do much of that in that game.

        >>But either way they deserve ay least some small
        > degree of tactical credit for playing the game in a manner that played
        > to their strengths. Had they chased the Russians around all day they
        > WOULD have gotten into penalty trouble as they lacked the speed to do
        it
        > and would have been plagued with hooks and holds all day long! It was
        >> insidiously simple yet smart to make the Russians come to them...

        >I totally agree with your last point. Shero knew how to minimize their
        own
        >weaknesses.

        And that game might have been Shero at his best. He really had a general
        plan that fit the Soviets. And, in a way it was basically a less drastic
        sort of trap. The Swedes started trapping the next decade and gained
        results. It eventually came here and won. Take note that this happened
        after we ourselves had became more Europeanized in our tactics. Maybe
        Shero was bit ahead of his time? He used an OLD hockey system to take on
        the new wave and prevailed. And in a real way we've seen that repeated,
        first in Europe in the late 80's then here right through today. Granted,
        it isn't foolproof! A well prepared, fast, talented team that is ready
        for some hitting and ready for it can beat the trap. But it is NOT
        simple! The Soviets weren't ready for this...



        To unsubscribe from this mail list, send a blank message to
        hockhist-unsubscribe@onelist.com

        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.