View Single Post
11-05-2003, 09:23 PM
Registered User
dedalus's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
I have no interest of discussing any game-quickening suggestions up to this oint in the thread, and have made no attempt to do so. My issue is with the principle of the discussion.
Oh I agree. Your interest is clearly in defending Bob Clarke from criticism. My point is that the arguments you offer in his defense are flawed.

Your principle seems to be based on the misconception that Bob Clarke is being attacked because he wants more scoring. (At least the closing question concerning Lou in your first post seems to imply that by pointing out that Lou should be attacked for NOT trying to encourage more scoring.)

In fact no one is attacking Clarke because he wants more scoring. They're attacking Clarke because his proposal has a basic inequity: it doesn't apply to everyone. Furthermore it specifically doesn't apply to his own team, but it does specifically apply to his team's chief division rival. (This is also the answer to your final questions. The reason no one is attacking Lou is because more scoring isn't the issue. Nor is it the general taking away of forwards' abilities to forecheck as you suggest in your Brodeur questions. You may not like that forwards are held up and that Brodeur sees benefit from that, but ALL forwards are held up, and ALL goalies may take advantage of that. What's at issue is an attempt to target and restrict the gameplay of select players. That the attempt is wrapped in the banner of "more scoring" doesn't change the nature of the unjust proposal.)

I can personally assure you that if Martin Brodeur played for the Flyers and Bob Clarke proposed this rule change I wouldn't be excoriating him. I heartily doubt that anyone would. In all likelihood Clark would be praised for his courage in weakening his own team .... well that's not quite true. Flyers fans like yourself would be positively ripping him for proposing such a rule change.

But Brodeur doesn't play for him, and neither does Ron Hextall anymore, and that is exactly why Clarke is proposing this. I think we both know that Clarke would never put his suggestion forward if he had a skating, puckhandling goaltender who would be playing 3/4 of his team's games.

He's being criticized because he wants to initiate rules that apply to others but not to him.

I don't think you're applying the same principle to Lamoriello or Brodeur that you are to Clarke.
Of course I'm not and there's a simple reason for that: Lou and Brodeur are not trying to implement changes in the rulebook that target a specific, small group of players in order to gain a competitive advantage. On the day they do that we'll have a comparable situation. On the day they do that and I don't attack them for it, you can call me a hypocrite and actually have that accusation mean something.

I see no fundamental difference between enacting rules that would prohibit a "more talented" goaltender from using that talent to an advantage, and not enacting rules that benefit said "more talented" goaltenders. How many fewer pucks does Brodeur get to when forwards aren't held up in the neutral zone?
Clearly that's in the nature of the rules enacted and those not enacted. ALL goalies would be hurt by the instatement of rules that prohibited the delaying of forwards in the neutral zone. The damage might be mitigated by excellence on an individual goalie's part, but the principle of "universal hurt" applies. In the case of what Clarke wants, there is no "univeral hurt." Goalies like Mike Dunham and Jeff Hackett aren't hurt by the introduction of Clarke's rule because, as non-wandering goalies, the rule simply doesn't apply to them. This is the basic inequity of the suggestion, and that is not changed by Clarke's stance on any other potential rules changes.

You seemed to be hurt by the tone of my previous post.
Not at all. You seem to be misreading my sarcasm as hurt, but I assure you it's nothing more than a mirroring of the sarcasm in your own post.

dedalus is offline