Coach's Corner on Time Delay

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2004-02-07 11:31am

I just read this in the morning paper today. CBC is now putting Coach's Corner with Don Cherry on a 7 second delay so they can censor his more controversial rants. For non Canadians, Coach's Corner is a hockey commentary segment shown during the 1st intermission of the game where Don Cherry uses blunt language and rips into various hockey related issues.

So what got him nailed with the 7 second delay? Well, there's been a lot of highsticking incidents this year in the NHL and lots of players are getting hurt. As a result more & more players are wearing protective face visors. Cherry was raving on how visors were "unmanly" and then went on to say "most of the guys that wear them are Europeans and French guys". Which is pretty much par for the course, he's been saying that Europeans are cheapshot artists and play like wusses for as long as I can remember.

And now they whack him with the delay so they can censor his controversial comments. Coach's Corner ain't gonna be the same after this.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2004-02-07 11:37am

Instead of censoring that jackass they could tell him to show how "manly" he is on the ice with a hockey stick in the face,mabe he`ll change his opinion after that.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-02-07 11:52am

Sorry, but Don Cherry is a complete jack-ass. Hockey gets more boring to watch every year in large part because of the Cherry-fication of the game. The fucking goons run the game now, and Cherry cheers them on with his "let the players play" bullshit against the refs, which is just his way of saying "let the goons play dirty."

The man is a fucking dinosaur, who promotes the moronic logic that you are better-protected without protection, because people will "respect" your vulnerability (when we all know the real reason is "because that's the way they played in the old days", ie- appeal to tradition). By his imbecilic logic, why not take off all of your pads so that people won't ram you into the boards any more?

Don Cherry should be considered a national embarrassment.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-07 11:53am

Who is this Don Cherry fellow?

Post by **Dalton** » 2004-02-07 11:56am

You think this is bad? The Oscars are going to be on a five-minute delay because of Janet Jackson's breast.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-02-07 12:05pm

Joe wrote:Who is this Don Cherry fellow?

Try to imagine what Rush Limbaugh would be like if he were a huge hockey fan. Pompous windbag with appallingly poor logic and an inexplicably large number of fans who hang on his every imbecilic word. He has a show called "Coach's Corner" on CBC's Hockey Night in Canada in which he rants during every game about how the "finesse players" are wimps and that "real men" play the game by acting like goons.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2004-02-07 12:06pm

Dalton wrote:You think this is bad? The Oscars are going to be on a five-minute delay because of Janet Jackson's breast.

What i heard is the Grammys is on the 5 minutes dealy and the Oscars will be on the 15 minutes delay.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-02-07 12:07pm

Montcalm wrote:
Dalton wrote:You think this is bad? The Oscars are going to be on a five-minute delay because of Janet Jackson's breast.
What i heard is the Grammys is on the 5 minutes dealy and the Oscars will be on the 15 minutes delay.

Can they extend the Oscars delay to infinity, so they never air it?

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2004-02-07 12:11pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Montcalm wrote:
Dalton wrote:You think this is bad? The Oscars are going to be on a five-minute delay because of Janet Jackson's breast.
What i heard is the Grammys is on the 5 minutes dealy and the Oscars will be on the 15 minutes delay.
Can they extend the Oscars delay to infinity, so they never air it?

Only if there`s a terrorist attack in Hollywood.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2004-02-07 12:11pm

Joe wrote:Who is this Don Cherry fellow?

Former NHL hockey coach who's still living in "the good old days". He's an ass but I find him quite entertaining for some reason. Found a Globe & Mail article, it's quite different from the Toronto Star one I just read.

Article here

2000AD · Post by **2000AD** » 2004-02-07 01:41pm

Dalton wrote:You think this is bad? The Oscars are going to be on a five-minute delay because of Janet Jackson's breast.

I'm betting it has something to do with Michael Moore's rant last year as well.

Burak Gazan · Post by **Burak Gazan** » 2004-02-07 03:02pm

Cherry has been doing this sort of thing for the last 20-odd years, and for CBC to suddenly express their outrage (GASP!!) is a pile of bullshit stacked about 6 feet high. In case they hadn't noticed, his little segment (annoying it is at times) is the only reason a lot of people watch the show, since their coverage sucks ass.

I suspect he might pack it in over this; as DW put it, he is somewhat of a dinosaur and gets on your nerves at times

zombie84 · Post by **zombie84** » 2004-02-07 04:59pm

Cherry had a point about his "visors cause injury" thing though; just the other day during a leaf game, a player (cant remember who) who was wearing a visor got high sticked in the face, tearing a huge gash along his eye. The problem with the "more equipment causes injury" argument is that you cant undue the way players play the game now--players play rough and its hard to curb the dirty moves that go on in the game. I think if you were to, say, remove helmets, eventually players would settle down and respect their volnerability. I remember reading a similar story about WWI: soldiers would charge out of the trenches with some caution, but then they gave them helmets--the soldiers believed that they were invincible with their new protection, when the helmets wouldnt stop bullets at all, and the fatality rate tripled.

Personally, i love Cherry, and yes, he sometimes says some bigotted things, but i find a lot of times he is absolutly correct. I dont know why people are up in arms now, he's been sore at the europeans and even Americans for years, sometimes with good reason, often times without, but he has been saying stuff like this for years.

Anyway, i dont find Cherry to be anti-referee, in fact i find the complete opposite--watch any edition of Coaches Corner and you will always find him complains, quite validly, about the lack of enforcement for cheap shots and such. His beef, and one i share, is that this whole culture of political correctness is often taking away the pleasures of the game itself.

Burak Gazan · Post by **Burak Gazan** » 2004-02-07 05:41pm

I don't HATE Don, but it seems like he's still in 1972 while the rest of us have evolved somewhat

The whole visor hoopla re injuries may be a bit of a red herring - the real problem is players swing the lumber around with zero regard for what it connects with. Unless and until the zebra brigade gets clued in the eye injuries will continue to occur.

The eye injury you talking about, was that Hossa in the Leafs v Senators game on Thursday? That wasn't a stick, but a slapshot hit him in the face, shattering his visor and cutting him badly (but not in the eye). Something like 8 stitches, and it'll keep him out of the all-star game. Now, if he didn't have a visor there, would he have been cut as bad? Or hurt worse, maybe a shattered cheekbone or orbital? There are arguments either way

muse · Post by **muse** » 2004-02-07 06:16pm

The way he yells and raves annoys me, but he does bring up good points at times. He had a good rant on hitting from behind and cross-checking, and how both were stupid and caused unneeded injuries. He pointed out how you don't need to hold the stick with both hands to run a guy into the boards, and how doing so can cause injuries and break sticks. Rather, you take a hand off the stick before checking the guy into the boards, it ties the guy up just as well and you don't take a stupid penalty for it either. Overall I like the guy and find him fun to watch.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-02-07 09:34pm

Darth Wong wrote:Don Cherry should be considered a national embarrassment.

For quite some time Cherry has been on my list of prominent Canadians who already hold the title, such as our former Prime Minister Chretien (no explanation needed), or former Toronto mayor Mel Lastman (whose moronic "cannibal joke" cost Toronto any chance of hosting the 2008 Olympics).

Anyway back on topic, it's not easy for the CBC to punish Cherry for his "brain farts" (I mean the insulting or infalmmatory type, Cherry has lots of other brain farts on a minute to minute basis), because he has a massive number of devoted fans. Methinks he should really have been axed for this, not just cencored.

Remember what happened at the 2002 Olympics after he derided Russians as drug/steroid users? They should have come down hard on him for that, but noooo, the his Mighty Fan Army of Doom ensures he gets away clean

.

SCRawl · Post by **SCRawl** » 2004-02-07 09:36pm

Having never played organized hockey, it's hard for me to imagine the players' point of view. One player, Darcy Tucker, who is currently on the mend from a high stick to the eye, has said that he would resist a mandatory visor rule. His rationale (and again, I can't really debate this logic) is that visors sometimes create blind spots (through condensation or other means) which may cause him to miss someone who is going to body-check him, which will cause him to be injured anyways. Maybe he has a point, maybe he's full of it, I dunno.

I really start to roll my eyes when I hear the "macho" argument -- players don't want to wear the visor because they want to be thought of as tough guys, and the thinking (I guess) is that tough guys are stupid enough to allow themselves to be put at risk of being blinded by more or less random events. Hard to fathom by someone like me who isn't part of the culture.

As for Cherry being an embarrassment, well, that's a matter of taste. He is a dinosaur, to be sure, but he has an intimate understanding of the game which cannot be so easily dismissed. He's popular because he calls it like he sees it. I'm not crazy about his whole schtick (it's getting kind of tired), but I do like to hear what he has to say from time to time.

EmperorSolo51 · Post by **EmperorSolo51** » 2004-02-07 10:15pm

Joe wrote:Who is this Don Cherry fellow?

Canadian hockey night in Canada commentator a Fmr. Boston Bruins coach. It was because of his coaching, that cost the Bruins a shot at the cup in the 1978 playoffs.

muse · Post by **muse** » 2004-02-07 11:17pm

SCRawl wrote:Having never played organized hockey, it's hard for me to imagine the players' point of view. One player, Darcy Tucker, who is currently on the mend from a high stick to the eye, has said that he would resist a mandatory visor rule. His rationale (and again, I can't really debate this logic) is that visors sometimes create blind spots (through condensation or other means) which may cause him to miss someone who is going to body-check him, which will cause him to be injured anyways. Maybe he has a point, maybe he's full of it, I dunno.

I played little league hockey with the boys when I was a kid and I can fully understand Darcy's viewpoint. Visors suck, they're actually worse than metal wire facemasks which have a bunch of issues which I won't get into. Visors are the biggest crud magnets ever made, they collect sweat, snot, snow coming off the ice, condensation, smudge marks from when you try to wipe them off with your hands, gloves, or jersey, they condense, and I've even had condensation freeze on them. Given how fast things happen once you get to the OHL level or higher I can imagine how much of a pain they could be.

zombie84 · Post by **zombie84** » 2004-02-08 01:22am

I still play hockey now, i've been playing in a hockey league for over 15 years and i completely understand what Cherry was saying.

Its not "more protection equals more injuries"--the added "protection" of a visor creates a false sense of security whose potential injury outweighs its protection. If people are wearing visors, players are less likely to take it easy on them, they start waving their sticks more carelessly because they think "hey, i dont have to worry, he's protected"; but of course the visor itself does little, and you have people thinking they're superman and taking risks that they otherwise wouldnt take, and we have more injuries.

Aside from that, the visor is terribly obstructive when you play, even the half-visors that the NHL guys have. Either use a full visor, which actually provides protection, or dont use one at all.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-02-08 01:32am

Darth Wong wrote:Sorry, but Don Cherry is a complete jack-ass. Hockey gets more boring to watch every year in large part because of the Cherry-fication of the game. The fucking goons run the game now, and Cherry cheers them on with his "let the players play" bullshit against the refs, which is just his way of saying "let the goons play dirty."

The man is a fucking dinosaur, who promotes the moronic logic that you are better-protected without protection, because people will "respect" your vulnerability (when we all know the real reason is "because that's the way they played in the old days", ie- appeal to tradition). By his imbecilic logic, why not take off all of your pads so that people won't ram you into the boards any more?

Don Cherry should be considered a national embarrassment.

The problem is, as I believe you yourself pointed out, is that the NHL isn't cracking down on goonish behavior but it has cracked down on retaliation. In my opinion, the biggest deterrent to acting like a goon would be the knowledge that if you take a cheap shot, someone else is going to come beat your ass.

It's kinda like the designated hitter rule in baseball. Pedro Martinez and Roger Clemens can make a career out of headhunting to scare hitters away from the inside of the plate because they know if they actually hit someone, the worst thing that happens to them is their stats go down. In the meantime, National League pitchers know that if they play dirty, they themselves will be targets. It will be interesting to see how Clemens adjusts to pitching in the National League. I hope he realizes that if he gets too aggressive trying to brush batters back that he'll be painting a bull's-eye on his own jersey.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-02-08 01:57am

zombie84 wrote:Its not "more protection equals more injuries"--the added "protection" of a visor creates a false sense of security whose potential injury outweighs its protection.

By this logic, we would have safer highways if seatbelts were taken out of cars.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-02-08 02:00am

RedImperator wrote:The problem is, as I believe you yourself pointed out, is that the NHL isn't cracking down on goonish behavior but it has cracked down on retaliation. In my opinion, the biggest deterrent to acting like a goon would be the knowledge that if you take a cheap shot, someone else is going to come beat your ass.

True. But the refs could easily crack down too; this mantra of "let the players play" (which becomes twice as loud and strident during the playoffs; the NHL is the only sport I know where the rules actually seem to dramatically change during the playoffs) is one of those oft-repeated slogans that drive me crazy. Slogans and one-line quips are not a substitute for reasoned arguments.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-02-08 02:08am

Darth Wong wrote:
RedImperator wrote:The problem is, as I believe you yourself pointed out, is that the NHL isn't cracking down on goonish behavior but it has cracked down on retaliation. In my opinion, the biggest deterrent to acting like a goon would be the knowledge that if you take a cheap shot, someone else is going to come beat your ass.
True. But the refs could easily crack down too; this mantra of "let the players play" (which becomes twice as loud and strident during the playoffs; the NHL is the only sport I know where the rules actually seem to dramatically change during the playoffs) is one of those oft-repeated slogans that drive me crazy. Slogans and one-line quips are not a substitute for reasoned arguments.

The argument against the refs cracking down is that nobody wants to watch a game where play is constantly stopping for penalties. After a while the penalties would drop off, but the transition period would be pretty ugly and the NHL has enough viewership problems as it is. So instead they've gone and picked the worst possible solution, where cheap shot artists can endanger other players but a straight-up punch in the face is worth all kinds of time in the penalty box.

You hear the "let the players play" mantra in the NFL, too, especially in regards to roughing the passer calls. I saw a lot of flags and 15 yard penalties this season for "hits" on the QB which were entirely accidental and completely harmless, so this argument might actually have some merit in pro football.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-02-08 02:09am

I'll start watching hockey if they stop having utterly contrived, boring, pointless fights every 5 minutes.