Pickin' The Corners 4.16.08

Posted by Ian Smart on 04.16.2008

If you want to hate Sean Avery, do it because he is an effective pest and difficult opponent. Do not pretend to be appalled by his antics.

Playoff Series as they Stand

West:

Detroit 2 Nashville 1
Minnesota 2 Colorado 2
Anaheim 2 Dallas 1
Calgary 2 San Jose 2

East:

Pittsburgh 3 Ottawa 0
New York 2 New Jersey 1
Montreal 3 Boston 1
Philadelphia 2 Washington 1


I think that the above all else fans should demand passion and determination from players, regardless of the sport. A few months ago, those who participated in an ESPN.com said as much, indicating that a player not giving their best effort was the ultimate sin for an athlete. I would imagine that anyone that has a genuine grasp and experience with the nature of athletic competition would be inclined to agree, which is why I was astonished to hear and read that reaction to Sean Avery's screening techniques during Game 3 of the playoff series between the New York Rangers and the New Jersey Devils.

To preface the upcoming statements, I am a proponent of antics aimed at rattling one's opponents. As both a player and spectator I encourage these actions; most importantly because they work, but also because psychology is a critical part of sports. Pitchers need to bring the ball in close to demonstrate to the batter that they should think twice before crowding the plate or digging into the batter's box. Offensive and defensive linemen have turned psychological torments into a science; anything that a player can do to get the other team off their game is tolerable and pardonable in my eyes.

This is just one of the reasons that I have always liked Sean Avery; he is willing to do whatever it takes to get an opponent off of his game. Sean Avery is not only willing to fight the tough battles in the corners and bloody himself in the process, but he is willing to do whatever it takes to win a game. That is what he was trying to do during Game 3, and yet members of the media have vilified him for his actions, which are benign at the very most. Avery committed no great sin, nor did he do anything that transgresses any written rule of the game – until an addendum was added to the NHL rulebook on Monday. Avery contrived an ingenious way to distract and divert Brodeur's focus. Avery did what every fan and coach demands of their players: he did whatever he could to enable his team to win.

So why is everyone so angry with Avery?

To begin his technique was unorthodox to say the least. Typically, a player puts his back to the goalie when screening the keeper and moves from in-sync with the goaltender's movements in order to obstruct his field of vision and generally distract them. Avery's choice to face Brodeur while screening him was what has evoked the reaction, primarily because no one has ever done anything like that before. Todd Bertuzzi, a number of years ago, used his hand to obstruct the goaltender's vision, and was assessed an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty on the play. Screening the goalie is a hallmark of hockey, and some players, most notably Tomas Homstrom, has made a career out of such a tactic; Avery simply found an even more effective way of doing what some any other players do. The major complaint has been that what Avery did was unsportsmanlike, a catchall term that is more or less devoid of meaning at this point anyways. A player is not assessed a penalty for sticking his posterior mere inches from the face of an opposing goalie, nor for verbally abusing an opposing player; but these would both appear to fall within the umbrella of unsportsmanlike conduct. So at what point does something become unsportsmanlike? Moreover, who gets to decide?

The referees in New York saw no problem with Avery's tactics- no penalty was assessed. Even the Devils' defensemen (Paul Martin and Colin White) could not have been all that upset considering neither one of them thought to push Avery away from the front of the net, or tie him up in any capacity. No one on the ice, with the exception of Martin Brodeur took exception to the Avery's tactics at the time. Moreover, despite the NHL amending the rulebook in order to prohibit Avery from using similar tactics again, there was, and remains, a perfectly applicable penalty to be called if the actions of Sean Avery had been deemed to be in violation of the rules. Rule 75.4-Subsection 3 of the NHL rulebook states that a misconduct penalty shall be assessed to: "Any player or goalkeeper who, after warning by the Referee, persists in any course of conduct (including threatening or abusive language or gestures or similar actions) designed to incite an opponent into incurring a penalty." One must assume that referees have a grasp of the rules of the game and, thus, one must conclude that Referee Don Van Massenhoven, who can clearly been seen warning Avery, did not feel as though the screening technique warranted a penalty.

The problem in this case seems to lie more with the player than with his actions. People in and around the NHL despise Sean Avery. They believe that he is a stain on the game and that his persistent antics should mean that he is subjected to a different standard. All pro-sports leagues, the NHL especially, subject some players to a far more lenient rulebook then others. Look no further than Alexander Ovechkin's hit on Daniel Briere, quite possibly the most despicable hits ever thrown in an NHL game. As discipline, Ovechkin was fined $1000. Had Sean Avery thrown that hit, a double-digit suspension would have been the minimum penalty assessed. This season, the contrast can be seen in the different penalties dished out by the NHL Office for two different stomping incidents. Chris Pronger received an eight game suspension for stomping Ryan Kesler, but Chris Simon received 30 games. These events cannot be considered as equals, Simon's stomp was more blatant and malicious and his past is littered with these types of incidents, but Chris Pronger is notorious for delivering dirty and malicious hits. He delivered two of these hits within 10 days during last year's playoffs, first on Tomas Holmstrom – from behind no less- and then to Dean McCammond.

The vilification of Sean Avery is more of a product of a personal dislike rather than a genuine distain for what he did on the ice. Avery looked a little foolish, but that his cross to carry, Avery also left himself vulnerable to a point shot that he would not be able to see coming- once again a risk he was obviously comfortable taking. Any pleas that Avery violated the rules by lifting his stick above his shoulders is also done in either ignorance or as a faint hope of grasping a persuasive argument, because as long as the stick does not make contact with an opponent, no penalty can be assessed. Had Brodeur skated forward, even if it was obvious that he was attempting to hit the stick of Avery, a penalty would have been assessed, because a player must be in control of his stick at all times.

Avery's legacy has been coloured by a number of events. The two that come to mind include his alleged racist remark towards Georges Laraque and his diatribe against French Canadians. In both cases, there was no need for alarm, because his comments about French Canadians was less than newsworthy and the only evidence to the alleged racist slur was Laraque, the same can be said of Jason Blake's claim that Avery mocked Blake's cancer diagnosis during a pre-game skate. If these slurs did occur, the players would deal with them on the ice, and I would imagine that far worse has been said. I have always been skeptical about the slur against Laraque, because no matter how crazy one believes Sean Avery is, when faced with the fact the he is 5'10, 195 pounds, and Laraque is a 6'3 240-pound enforcer, who has made his living physically dominating opponents; it is difficult to believe that Avery would do anything to incite Laraque. Moreover, it does not make sense to anger Laraque, because he is only made better when he is angry.

Avery also suffers the negative ramifications of his tabloid lifestyle, where he is often cited attending strip clubs and dating notable celebrities. This persona is only exacerbated by the fact that his on-ice role is that of a pest, who is entrusted to incite anger in other players and put them off their game; the fixation on these parts of Avery as a player causes many to overlook his skill, grit, and passion.

What Avery did was within the boundaries of the game as had been laid out prior to the game. Had they not been, Don Van Massenhoven would have called some sort of penalty. Vilifying him because he thought of a means to enhance his ability as a pest is unfair, because he is only doing what is asked of him, and that it to give everything he has in the pursuit of winning.

Questions? Comments? Suggestions? E-mail me at [e-mail]