Bitter Over the Shootout, Party of One

Via Kuklas, this is what we get from the St. Petersburg Times (by Damian Cristodero):

The shootout must go. It is an argument that will fall on deaf ears. The fans love it, and if the fans love it, the league loves it, too. But after what happened Thursday in the Lightning’s shootout loss to the Avalanche, it should be clear the shootout is evil.

You know what, let’s just stop there. This article is a freaking joke. I understand not liking the outcome of the game, nor the goal that was awarded (if the puck didn’t cross the line, a “goal” is pretty empty), but the complaint sounds worse than a Breeders reunion tour. If the same thing would have happened in overtime, the same ruling would have applied, and the game would have ended. And just because the vast majority of the fans don’t know the rule, you can bet the goaltenders around the league know it.

But the main reason this falls on deaf ears is that, for the Lightning, it’s a meaningless point. They didn’t give a point to a Conference rival, that point goes to the west. And the Lightning are the worst team in the league, and will most likely stay that way the rest of the season. The chances that they get into the playoffs are the same as me growing my hair back. It’s not going to happen. They have the worst goals for, are tied for last with the Islanders (who have more wins), and can’t even beat the Thrashers. What is a win in the shootout against the Avalanche going to give the Lightning? A sense of well being? A new direction? Something to build on? No, it’s going to give them a point that is worth less than stock in AIG. No one is going to listen.

This, of course, makes me laugh:

Forget whether it was the right call. No one who really appreciates hockey can believe that was a satisfying outcome: a game determined by a goal that never happened.

Actually, I would say that the most important thing is that you make the right call. Sure, a goal with a puck that isn’t in the net isn’t satisfying, but two points sure is (which I’m guessing is his point). And you have to give the two points to the right team. Make the wrong call, and you put that in jeopardy. The shootout could have ended in the Avs favor anyways, but like a lot of hockey “controversies” debated, this one wasn’t completely decided by the right or wrong call. The Lightning could have tied the shootout by scoring. They didn’t.

Can we finish out on a high note? No matter the context, this is just plain weird:

Maybe you kiss your sister now and then. It’s better than swallowing something so unappetizing.



  1. Damn, dude really has a thing for his sister, eh?

    That’s just a weird analogy to use in an article. Twice.

  2. Really.

    Plus, you can always spit. (Sorry.)

  3. hmmm…

Speak Your Mind