I’m not one to have a favourite team in any sport. Living and dying by the fortunes of a singular sporting team seems a bit much. I do, however, have a number of teams I keep close to my heart and in hockey, one of those teams has always been the Vancouver Canucks.
The Canucks are the first team I can remember cheering for as a young lad. The walls of the bedroom I shared with my brother were rich with hockey posters; my side of the room displaying the likes of Pavel Bure and Kirk McLean, and my brother’s side, Jeremy Roenick and Ed Belfour of the Hawks.
So now, 17 years after I felt the sting of the Canucks losing to the Rangers (jerks) in the Finals, I’m pumped to be watching Vancouver get another chance to win the Cup.
This time around they’re taking on the Bruins. Game 1 is over and it was quite good.
Unbelievably fast out of the gate, which is to be expected after a lay-off of several days (especially for Vancouver). The Bruins’ Thomas made some good saves early and then the rest of the first half became a penalty fest. The second half saw fewer penalties and excluding a cross-bar hit and failed breakaway, it was tight defensively. The first and only goal of the game came with 19 seconds left in the third, and it was a nice one. Torres scores for the Canucks, and game 1 is in the books for Vancouver. It was great to see the game end with a nice two-pass play rather than a garbage goal, a fluke goal or a jam-play at the net; so nice.
The game was quite even, and either team winning would have done so deservingly. That being said, I do think the Canucks had a slight edge in play. Hopefully they can keep this up.
– My star of the game for the Canucks was Jannik Hansen; lots of speed, some big hits, some scoring chances and a nice pass to Torres for the game winner.
– My prediction for the series, although I shudder to do so for fear of Fate snubbing me, is Vancouver winning it in 5.
An open letter, RE: “clipping”, to all hockey broadcasters, play-by-play announcers, colour commentators, analysts, and any other person whose job it is to speak about hockey on television:
Dear Sir or Madam,
“Clipping” is a penalty in American football. And as such, it does not belong in the lexicon of hockey. Recently it has been used by various on-air hockey personalities to describe a body check where one player hits an opposing player by lowering his torso in order to get below the center of gravity of said player, with the expected result of separating the puck from the opposing player. This is not “clipping”; it is a hip-check.
This erroneous language was used by a commentator at the CBC to describe Dan Hamhuis’ hit on Milan Lucic during game 1 of this year’s Stanley Cup Playoffs. As explained above, this was not “clipping”; it was a hip-check.
If hockey people continue to use the word “clipping” to describe hip-checks, it will, being that “clipping” carries a negative connotation, begin to cast hip-checks in a negative light. This would be an unfortunate degradation of the game.
Hip-checks require a great deal of skill and timing to perform well, and when they are (performed well), they often have a spectacular result, and importantly, rarely result in serious injury such as concussion.
Please stop using the term “clipping”. It does not belong, and it does a great disservice to the great game of hockey.
Hockey Fans Against the Use of Stupid Words