Why are people so sensitive? Cherry is Cherry and it is his role to be provocative. In the same vein, if the choice at Super bowl was Justin/ Janet or the Lingerie bowl why the fuss?

the problem with Don Cherry is his inability to communicate the subtelties and full scope of his assessment and knowledge of hockey. he is mired in hos use of old-time hockey cliches and a belief that everyone understands the world on the basis of this old jargon. in fact, if one can suspend the prejudice against his poor communication, one sees that he often has a valid position based on facts and a very keen sense of the game. in the present case, he is right, most of the nhl'ers that wear visors are europeans and french guys, but what was he implying? was he implying that wearing a visor is cowardly and these players are cowardly? if so, then that opinion is troubling. i think what he was implying was that europeans and french guys use their sticks more and are less concerned about stickwork because they wear visors. stickwork is a dangerous trend that has been increasing in the nhl. maybe Don Cherry's point was: take away visors and you take away stickwork. i wonder what the statistics are on stick-related penalties: are most of these caused by visor-wearing players?

[Hans is building up his beer chits nicely.]

I think that is it. He presents his case poorly rather than having a poor case. I also like the fact that he presents a voice for values respectful of older ways - regardless of whether every aspect of those ways is now palatable. His best wishes for both the military abroad and kids injured in hockey accidents are important reminders which contextualize hockey as something bigger than the NHL. Do you see that with NBA or NFL coverage? Never.

Note that the freedom of speech issue [and I'm referring the govt investgation, not his employment at CBC] is unrelated to the issue factual truth, provable or not. You, I and Cherry should be free to say "only french guys wear visors" with fear of government investigation, even if french guys were the only people in the league not to wear visors.

<strike>I believe</strike> It would be just as erroneous to assume that Francophone hockey players are more intelligent then Anglophone hockey players based solely on the fact that a higher percentage of them are smart enough to wear visors while playing hockey.

Speaking out is not justified solely on the fact that one is right. I thought all married (or civil union) men knew this. (From my perch, wondering if Mrs. MacLean reads this blog)

Buy a round, Alan

I don't buy ronds - I just point out the wisdom in others doing so!

"McLeod"...sorry

More wisdom from Grapes (from the Globe and Mail):

Earlier, Mr. Cherry used an appearance on the Mike Bullard Show to say he had turned down an invitation to appear on the O'Brien show because he was embarrassed at the way Canadians reacted to the host's arrival in Toronto.

"He brings his show up here. Oh goody, goody, goody. He's going to say something good about Toronto. Oh boy, we're so happy," Mr. Cherry said mockingly. "We don't like Americans and then they bring up an American and all of a sudden we're rolling around the grass about them. I don't get it."

I thought you meant Mrs. Ron MacLean! Mrs. Mc' uses this blog to keep up with me.

I'm lobbying for replacing Ron MacLean on "Coach's Corner" with "Triumph - the insult comic dog" - now there y'd have the "Point and Counter-Point" discussion that no Mensa member would like to miss.

How about replacing Cherry with the folks that did "Krusty's new clown-related entertainment show"?
http://www.snpp.com/episodes/3F12.html

In fact, Grapes did not make a comment about the intestinal fortitude of French-Canadians. He was questioning the potential for visors to create an environment that may cause more head injuries. C.H.L. injury statistician, Pat Clayton, in Calgary, discussing injury to1325 junior players, reported 56 concussions in 1999. In the years up to 1996, concussions averaged 4% of reported injuries. The percentage increased annually to 8%, 8.4%, 14%, 17 and 16.5% in 2001 possibly in concert with the growing popularity of visors.

The Toronto Sun concluded that of the NHL teams in Canada 76% [NHL-wide it's 65%] of the players who wore visors were Europeans and French guys. Cherry's point is that visors cause players to be more careless and in fact will cause more injuries. He said visors would be made mandatory because 40% of the league all-ready wears them and the coming wave of cuts and concussions should be blamed on the "do-gooders and whiners".

Let’s put it in perspective. The fetid obsequious appeasement that emanates from Ottawa toward the political class in la Belle Province is malodorous for many in English Canada. In addition, what is appalling is that no one on the federal level speaks against this putrid policy because the natural governing party pushes that view to the fringe labelling it bigoted. The recent Quebec sponsorship fraud is just another example. Grapes is popular because he speaks against that theme.

Remember the Nagano Olympics, some profligate from the Bloc Quebecois said that there were "too many Canadian flags at the games and the flag bearer Brassard, [from u-no-where] complained that carrying the Canadian flag at the opening ceremonies affected his performance.

Grapes’ response, "It's a funny thing, they don't want the Canadian flag but they want our money," said Cherry. "I've never seen such a bunch of whiners in my life....These people are whiners. If they want to leave, why don't they leave?"

The March 22, 2003 booing of the US National Anthem in Montreal as a protest against the Iraq War was entirely uncalled for even if you did not support the war. Moreover, the treatment of American "PeeWee" hockey players at a tournament in Montreal was despicable. During their four-day visit, the young Americans were horrified to see the Stars and Stripes burned and hear the National Anthem booed. When traveling in their bus emblazoned with a red, white and blue "Coach USA" logo, they saw, people on the street make angry gestures at them.

Even worse, while playing hockey their Canadian opponents told their American guests "the U.S. sucks" and shouted other anti-American insults, the boys recalled.

Cherry, wearing a tie emblazoned with a Star Spangled Banner motif, apologized on behalf of Canadians, saying that "years of pride went down the drain" with the behaviour of the Montreal fans.

While MacLean supported the government's choice not to go to war, Cherry characterized that position as "lack of support to our American friends."

"I hate to see them go it alone. We have a country that comes to our rescue, and we're just riding their coattails," Cherry said.

The federal government will never hold these elements of Quebec responsible for their actions. Cherry is simply the victim of a Liberal Party placating the racial block that represents continuing victory for them. The Liberal Party of Canada will not jeopardise that position in an election year even for something as trivial as Cherry’s comments.

Nice to have a hobby. Thanks for sharing your scrapbook of memories, Chuck.

If you don't like the heat, stay outta the kitchen!

I never heard the grassy knoll “visors cause concussions" theory before. I wonder why? Maybe because the enforced silence on this point is part of the grand conspiracy against Cherry? I remember that classic seen of Cherry bopping MacLean on the head with that cement-like visor – no, no wait now, that wasn’t a visor – it was an elbow “pad”! Ah, I get it now, man, that’s part of the conspiracy too! Those ninnies at the CBC prevented Cherry from using a visor for that piece, and forced Cherry to use the elbow pad or maybe, even more dastardly, those CBC commies edited out the visor and replaced it with that iron-clad elbow pad. Yeah, that’s it. Then they implanted a computer chip in his brain, to make him so stupid now that every time he opens his mouth to talk about elbow pads he says “visors” and says other crazy stuff so no one will take him seriously, yeah that’s it, or maybe?.. Or maybe ‘cause its just another dumb argument against visors.

On that theory, the League should be arguing to remove helmets - that would cut down on the head injuries. Surely, these brain buckets contribute the most to that “?environment that may cause more head injuries?” The more protection we remove from the players, the less likely they are to get hurt, right? Wow, talk about the ultimate counter-intuitive argument. If we removed all their equipment, they wouldn’t throwing themselves around like missiles either, eh? And while we’re at it, let’s take hitting out of the game too, and turn it into “professional shinny” (no “raisees” or “slappers”, we play for 60 minutes “straight” and “last goal wins”). “There might be skating on tonight, honey”.

No, Cherry wasn’t talking about visors and concussions; he was talking about visors and “stick work” and placed the blame squarely on the shoulders of those visor-wearing Europeans and those other visor-wearing foreigners, you know, those “French guys” who have no respect for the other players, you know, the Canadians (well, and a few USAers who are just like us true Canucks). Cherry basically said “take away the visors for these foreigners so that they can get their eyes poked out too, and you’ll eliminate the stick work”. Brilliant (to use Alan’s turn of phrase)!.

Cherry also said, in the same segment, that the “instigator rule” has lead to increased “stick work”, meaning: that if you could drop your gloves and pound the living sh*t out of that foreigner who “disrespected” you by being careless with his stick, without fear of getting that stupid instigator penalty, then that foreign goon would think twice before he carelessly disrespected you again. Again, brilliant!

Coach’s Corner - brought to you by the Association of Canadian Masters of Primitive Logic.

Dear Editor: Please replace the word "seen" with "scene" as it appears in Mr.SayNay's post dated 6:30AM, February 14, 2004 ("...I remember the classic scene..."). As his publicist, I am responsible for vetting all of his "posts", and believe me I am now suffering the consequences of missing this egregious error, for which I am required to accept full responsibility. I am the Please relieve my suffering at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter.

Yours very truly,

Spell Check, Esq

"..." still provokes "?" in some instances.

"""Surely, these brain buckets contribute the most to that “?environment that may cause more head injuries?"""

Is it to do with Microsoft Curly Quotes " or two singles, ''? Or is it due to the spellcheck in text document and transfer to HTML thingy?(See Alan, it is not just me! Nah-Nah-Nah-Nah!)

"Coach’s Corner - brought to you by the Association of Canadian Masters of Primitive Logic."

There they go again! Slamming Grapes for being a Neanderthal while ignoring the potential legitemacy of his point of view. People can call his logic primitive, but there is logic there. Yes, in Grapes' world, sloppy and cowardly penalties are policed by on ice enforcers or goons. But maybe he's right: maybe that kind of play does prevent injuries, maybe "stick work" is more dangerous than fighting, maybe wearing helmets and visors make players careless and therefore cause injuries, maybe the fear of being punched around by a goon prevents dirty penalties like kneeing or tripping. If you don't agree with Grapes on these points, don't call him names, PROVE HIM WRONG. Or better yet, how about having the refs actually enforce the cheap and dirty penalties? How about penalizing players for every face wash after the whistle or every poke-check in gut?

The thing about Grapes is that his worldview is based on a code that he learned as a player. That code may be primitive, but it has a logic to it and it makes sense. Now Grapes sees players who are not familiar with that code (or have a different code) and he is too inarticulate to explain why his code makes sense.

One last note: Another part of Grapes' code relates to how a player reacts to being injured. Grapes loves it when a player who gets hurt doesn't fall down and hates it when an injured player flops around on the ice. He usually points out that its related to a players pride, it is part of that old-time hockey code. But isn't it also true that over-reacting to injuries slows down the game making it less enjoyable? and doesn't under-reacting to an injury give you a psychological advantage (i.e. you can't hurt me) which may help win the game?

Sometimes there is method behind the madness. Looking beneath the surface before reacting and learning all the facts is the best way to argue against reactionaries.

Look, everyone keeps talking about Cherry as if he was that crazy uncle who suffered some sort of war wound, and gets a pass for sticking his hand in the jellied salad at family dinners. Well, at some point this crazy uncle sticks his hand somewhere else, and he doesn’t get invited out to family dinners anymore.

Cherry is an act, a caricature – his whole public persona is a “shtick”. Ask anyone who’s dealt with him - he’s a shrewd businessman who can be as articulate as he wants to be.

To “prove” Cherry wrong on “off with the visors, down with the sticks” theory, raises the old “proving the negative” dilemma. We all know intuitively that the wearing of a visor should have nothing to do with the conduct of the player and his use of his stick. The only way to test the theory, I suppose, in this case, is to make all the players take off their visors, and watch eyes being poked out all over the League, from stick use, deflections etc. That’s why Cherry’s theory is nuts. Here’s a short summary for discussion:
1. Visors have one function and one function only, to the protect eyes and upper facial area of the player;
2. Visors are worn by players particularly to reduce the possibility of a career ending eye injury;
3. Visors, in fact, reduce eye injuries;
4. A player who wears a visor is subject to the same Rules of the Game, as a player who does not wear a visor, and in particular, the following rules relating to the use of the stick (for which 2 or 4 minute penalties 5 minutes and Game Misconduct can be handed out):
Butt-ending: Striking an opponent with the top of the shaft of the stick in a jabbing motion (4,5 and GM).
Cross Checking: A check delivered with both hands on the stick with arms extended at the time of impact (2,4,5 and GM).
High sticking: Striking an opponent with stick above the shoulders (2,4,5 and GM).
Slashing: Swinging the stick at an opponent, regardless of whether contact is made (2,5 and GM).
Spearing: Stabbing at an opponent with the point of the stick blade regardless of whether contact is made (4,5 and GM).
Repeat offenders with respect to the above infractions where injury is caused, or where match penalties are assessed, are subject to additional League discipline.

5. If all players wore visors, eye injuries would be reduced among all players.
6. Visors don’t control players sticks, players do.

In Rusty's reference to those players who "over react" to injuries, he wouldn't be singling out those players who come from a "soccer heritage", would he?
Maybe Alan might have something to say about that.

"The fetid obsequious appeasement that emanates from Ottawa toward the political class in la Belle Province is malodorous for many in English Canada."

Somebody is trying way too hard.

I'm not even sure visors cut down on that many high-stick related eye and face injuries. A large chunk of high-stick infractions come from the defensive player trying to hook the puck carrier from behind and missing their arm, shoulder, etc and catching them in the face, or having the stick slide up their arm to their face. In those cases it's fairly common for the stick blade to go up under the visor.

On the other hand I don't want to know what would have happened to Marian Hossa's face if hadn't have been wearing the visor that got shattered by a puck.

As for concussions, are they actually on the rise or are they just being diagnosed more effectively? 5 years ago a player just would have shaken it off and ignored the dizziness. Now they know better.

I agree, Ben and I too thought Chuck's "...fetid obsequious...etc" remark sounded a little too much like Conrad Black on steroids.

Still, you've got a better chance avoiding an eye injury with a visor - just ask Brian Berard.

Anyway, Cherry's not the biggest problem players and pro-hockey has - the golden goose, the NHL, is on life support, and don't let those greedy players tell you otherwise. They may tell you that no one held a gun to the heads of the owners to pay them their current salaries, but they know revenues are a problem - and they don't seem to be too inclined to help fix it. A lock out or a strike, will pull the plug on that goose. I and a lot of others won't be too ready to rush back into the arenas, or turn on the tube, if they ever come back. The Washington Post has a great article on the League's problems at www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/ A23666-2004Jan16.html.

And if nobody watching the professional game, I don't know where the stats for minor hockey in Canada come from, but they look awfully fishy. These stats show a steady enrollment in minor hockey over the last 5 years. They must now include all the "Adult Hockey Leagues", with guys from my generation and the "Couch Potato Leagues"! Hardly any kid I know over the age of 16 plays hockey anymore - and if you have teenagers you'll know that even those who play are dropping out in droves after the age of 13. And its not only that they're not playing - they're not even watching the game; they couldn't care less. And I think part of the problem is that as a responsible parent, its hard to hold up any of these multi-millionaire mediocre talents as any type of "role model". It's the old story, Tie Domi makes $1.whatever million a season, for pounding the crap out other players, and your neigborhood heart surgeon might make $400K if he's lucky. You're better off not encouraging them to watch this thing that passes for a "professional sport", than trying to explain to your kid why Domi's talents have more "value" in this society than those of a doctor. Tell your kids to hit the books and if they flunk out, let them then lace on the skates and take some boxing lessons - and if they can pound the crap out enough quys, maybe they can compete for Domi's job - if there's still a professional league left to play in.

I still don't think there'll be a lockout next season. Both sides realize how bad the situation is but nobody wants to cave on anything this far before the CBA runs out- they'll look weak. Another reason to get a deal done- the NHL's American TV deal with ABC/ESPN runs out after this season. There's no way they're landing another contract until they get the CBA sorted out.

I think a lot of progress will be made once the playoffs are over.

You may be right, Ben, but I don't know if I really care anymore - go, stay; strike, lock out; whatever. Maybe the rule changes will breathe some life into the game, but these changes look pretty minor. The game is moribund. Hardly anyone follows it anymore (eg. name five of the top ten scorers), until the playoffs and then only if there is some sort of "competitive" series. I suppose the teams use $4 million they each receive from the ABC/ESPN TV deal for postage - that's about all it would cover. ABC is will show what, four or five games on it's US network? Hardly the type of US TV "breakthrough" that loser Bettman was looking for in the past 11 years. Bettman's gotta go - that would be another good first step - I see there's an online petition to remove him: www.petitiononline.com/RemoveGB/petition.html

It's got a whopping 342 signatures - the apathy is palpable - I didn't sign.

ESPN has a good website about the NHL/NHLPA CBA etc. at http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/feature/story?page=nhlcba#

One of the funnies on this site is 10 things you'll see if there's a strike/lockout - the only real funny one was: "New York Rangers enjoy best season in years".

Ah, yes the Rangers: the worst team money can buy. The poster child for all that is wrong with the NHL?

Alex Tanguay
Robert Lang
Markus Naslund
Ilya Kovalchuk
Joe Sakic
Daniel Alfredson
Joe Thornton

ABC showed games from 3 different markets today. I don't think anyone puts any faith in online petitions anymore. That's as likely a reason as any for people not signing. It's also possible that people don't think Bettman is the problem. $4 million can get you a pretty solid winger, a starting goalie or a top 2 defenseman.

I watched the Detroit/Colorado game from start to finish today and it was fantastic. I know plenty of people that are still huge NHL fans and I see the game growing in some American markets. Maybe it's just the circles I travel in but I don't see the apathy. I know more and more people getting excited about the Senators here in Ottawa- young people that are willing to spend money to go to games. I don't what you want to see in an NHL game but it's good enough to keep me entertained. Sometimes it's even the best entertainment out there.

If the players went on strike to get more money that would potentially turn me off of the game. Locking the players out to fix a failing system- I can respect that, even if it's the fault of the owners that the system is failing.

If people are disillusioned with sports in general and the amount of money pro athletes make that's one thing. It's another thing to say that among the major professional sports the NHL has the worst product.

I my eyes the Rangers are everything that is right with the NHL- money alone can't buy you a Stanley Cup. I'd be more concerned if the Rangers were first overall in the NHL with their bloated payroll of washed up superstars. The Yankees model doesn't work in the NHL, though Detroit and Colorado might beg to differ.

Keep the faith, Ben.

Thanks for the busy thread while I was away. We took in the NCAA Div 1 game at St. Lawrence in Canton, NY last night against Vermont and can report that if the NHL goes on strike there will be no great loss as good hockey is everywhere. For 12 bucks US, the whole family got to watch a real barn burner with no fights or dirty checking and some great players. No ads on the ice or boards either. I have some photos I'll post later.

I see there's about quite a few "good ole' Canadian boys" (to quote Cherry)on these teams, of which there's about half a dozen former CJHL players on the Saints, and a couple on the Catamounts. By the way, what the heck is a "Catamount"?

Catamount, cat-a-mount, cat of the mount, mountain lion.

"Go, puma concolors, go"

I think there was one token local Canton lad on St. Lawrence, the rest largely Canadians on scholarship. The people we sat next to, a couple that met there in the 50's and he a hockey player for St. Lawrence then, said many of the players would already have been drafted.

You're absolutely right about the skill level of college hockey, Al, and the "no nonsense" - tough, but not thuggery - approach to the game. People still talk about the "buzz" in the arena where ever the Back Bears from Maine would play, when this kid by the name of Kariya stepped on the ice. Why can't we get to see more of these games on the tube?

That's "Black Bears" not to be confused with the popular "bare back", the latter of which refers not to a team, but to another activity involving a stick, but not hockey.

Why the reaction ? Because Don Cherry portrayed French Canadians and Europeans wearing visors as cowards. Oh yes, that’s totally what he meant. Recent, unfortunate NHL events leading to lenghty, fair suspensions to Todd Bertuzzi and Wade Belak prompt the following question: how much facial damage would have Steve Moore and Ossi Vaananen suffer if it hadn’t been for wearing visors ? The NHL has suffered a black eye from these incidents indeed, but at least there is barely a physical proof to sustain this mindset.

Ironically, I’m a 23-year Canadian Armed Forces member, French Canadian living in Kingston. Come on, CBC: Fire the biggot. Be Canadian?

This is interesting, PG. Is there any kind of general cultural feeling against Cherry in Quebec or it is a fiction of political correct fearful ROC CBCers?<p>I wish they would move on from Coach's Corner just because it is dull.

Quebec natives, Anglos and Francos alike, especially Habs fans, dislike Don Cherry, not so much because of sour cultural feelings, but because for many years now, Coach’s Corner’s theme displays his arrogant reaction towards the Forum crowd when in a late 70’s Playoffs Game-7 as coach the Bruins, his costly late game “too-many-men-on-the-ice” penalty eventually cost him the series. The Habs went on to win the Cup, the Bruins Lunch Pail crew dissipated.

Few Francophones in Quebec watch Coach’s Corner. Radio-Canada broadcasts Habs games on Saturday nights and that’s what Quebecers watch? in French ! The medias, mainly Separatist-driven Journal de Montreal, pounced on this “visor” thing? but it was barely a one-day flare. Hardly a Hab fan gives a damn, “culturally” inclined or not. This event will not make it or break it at the next federal election, trust me. But even Leaf fans will agree: it wasn’t so long ago that Cherry flaunted the Salmings and the Hammarstroms as “Chicken Swedes”. My take: Sundin should have got the MVP two years ago, not Theodore? yet, I’m a Habs fan ! A little more objective journalism – on CBC – would be appreciated.

True hockey fans would rather hear the opinions of John Davidson, Bob McKenzie and such? Cherry must go. Sidekick him with WWF’s McMahon. He’s white trash too.

I have never gotten the anti-European thing though, sadly, I have heard too much of "the Frinch" bias, as it sounds like coming out of the mouth of people who have never met a Quebecer (or worse, being a Maritimer, someone who is saying it in the presence of Acadians). Vlad Kosnatinov was the toughest defenceman I ever saw. Cherry's wide cultural brush is too imprecise (as well as being offensive) to actually provide any insight. I entirely agree that Davidson and McKenzie represent journalism in sports, something baseball and football don't really have either as too many sports attract vacuous boosters.<p>By the way, thanks for posting. We are going to try to have a hockey pool here for the playoffs - pending a friend doing all the required software work - so feel free to join in.

As a lifelong New Yorker and Blueshirts fan (and season ticket holder for many years), I must admit, beyond the allure of "Rock 'em, Sock 'em" among the few hockey fans in my circle, Grapes is quite unheard of in the lower 48.

However, having moved to the PacNW in the last year, it's been enjoyable and enlightening watching the games called by and for the locals on CBC.

As an outsider, let me suggest this. Cherry is nothing more (and nothing less) than the hockey equivilent of NCAA broadcaster Dick Vitale. Love them or hate them, they are both knowledgeable as hell. Their passion for the game unsurpassed. And they wear their favorites on their sleeve, and couldn't care less for doing so. In my book, cheers to both.