THN.com Playoff Blog: Not touching conference champion trophies absurd
Nicklas Lidstrom didn't touch the Clarence Campbell Bowl after beating Dallas in the Western Conference final. (Photo by Ronald Martinez/Getty Images)
Ken Campbell
2008-05-20 14:35:54
Are hockey players really that superstitious? Are they really that out of touch with reality?
It appears so, given how most players treat the Prince of Wales Trophy and the Clarence Campbell Bowl after winning it in recent years. Somehow, these guys think if they treat the conference championship trophy as though it has a case of cooties, that will significantly enhance their chances of winning the trophy they really want – the Stanley Cup.
Do these guys really believe what ultimately transpires in the Stanley Cup final will have anything to do with whether or not they actually celebrated the accomplishment of winning the conference playoff championship?
Well, Scott Stevens and Steve Yzerman didn’t think so and things seemed to turn out all right for them. Stevens was captain of the New Jersey Devils and they won four Prince of Wales Trophies and three Stanley Cups. Stevens never hesitated to lift the trophy and at least show the accomplishment and the hardware some respect.
When asked once why he bothered to lift the Prince of Wales Trophy, Stevens said quite simply, “It’s a nice trophy.”
As captain of the Detroit Red Wings, Yzerman also won four conference championships, three of which resulted in Stanley Cup victories and he had no problem lifting the Clarence Campbell Bowl.
Neither of these players hoisted the trophy over his head and did a victory lap around the ice, they simply acknowledged the award and the accomplishment in a fitting way.
And they both went on to have a 75 percent success rate in the Stanley Cup final.
To blow off a trophy that signifies a significant achievement goes beyond superstition.
It’s simply a lack of respect.
THE BOMBASTIC ONE STRIKES AGAIN
Don Cherry misinformed on something? Shocker.
Cherry did nothing to hide his disdain for the NHL’s delay of game penalty that results from a player shooting the puck over the glass in the defensive zone after it cost Canada a gold medal at the World Championship. He went as far as to say, “Some fool, some idiot in the National Hockey League came up with that rule.”
(Disclaimer: I generally think Cherry is a clown and the media only serves to legitimize him by providing him a forum, but this one is so ridiculous I simply couldn’t let it go by without comment.)
Cherry claims the rule was instituted because players who were getting tired were deliberately putting the puck out of play to get a whistle.
The rule was actually instituted when the league was looking to open the game up after the lockout. The rationale behind the rule was that by penalizing players for even inadvertently shooting the puck over the glass, it would cause defensemen who are under pressure from forecheckers to have to make a skill-based play in order to get the puck out of danger rather than just rattling it off the glass.
The thinking was – and it was sound – it would either result in a more precise first pass out of the defensive zone or a turnover that would likely culminate in an excellent scoring chance.
Of course skill is not one of Cherry’s areas of strength. Neither is the rationale behind penalties. After all, if the league wouldn’t have been such sticklers about having only five skaters on the ice at one time, Cherry might have won his only Stanley Cup as a coach in 1979.
THN.com's Playoff Blogs, featuring analysis and opinion on the action from the night before, with insight on what happened and what it all means going forward, will appear daily throughout the NHL playoffs. Read more entries HERE.
Ken Campbell is a senior writer for The Hockey News and a regular contributor to THN.com. His blog appears Tuesdays and Fridays and his column, Campbell's Cuts, appears Mondays.
For more great profiles, news and views from the world of hockey, Subscribe to The Hockey News magazine.
Brian P (Posted 2008-05-22 15:19:54)
I love that Scott Stevens quote. I can just picture a reporter asking Stevens a long, rambling question about why he lifted it when so many superstitious guys wouldn't touch the thing, and him not even missing a beat with that one. "It's a nice trophy." Hey, someone probably worked a long time making it. It looks pretty good. Makes it worth a lift, I'd say.
Dan (Posted 2008-05-21 21:50:05)
Steve i am not saying that Don Cherry is always right , i know that. But when it comes to hockey basics and the games tradition and heritage i believe Don is right "most" of the time
ADKWingsFan (Posted 2008-05-21 20:46:07)
Ken, you completely missed the point. The reason the players don't touch the trophies goes beyond simple superstition. By not touching the trophy they are reminding themselves that there is still plenty of work to be done. In fact, rather than being disrespectful they are being humble and disciplined - instead of celebrating they are keeping themselves grounded and mentally ready to continue further. How many times have you seen a team blow a huge lead in a game because they get complacent and/or cocky? Come on Ken, seriously, put some more thought into your writing!
Maxime (Posted 2008-05-21 16:59:20)
To everyone who says that a penalty called for a puck over the glass is stupid : How many of you go "oh man what a stupid rule" when the opposing team gets called for it? I'll be wating on your hypocritical answers. The point is : it's a rule. You dump it over the glass : you get 2 minutes. It's been 3 years now...the guys had plenty of time to get used to it. If goalies can't throw it over the glass, then why should players be allowed? When i watch a hockey game, i like action. Not incessant stops in play because defensemen find it easier to dump the puck out so it reaches 3/4 of the rink...the second most boring strategy after playing the trap (which is something trap playing teams do defensively). Don't get me wrong. I'm canadian, so i'm just as pissed as anyone else. But i do understand that it is a rule, i understand why it is there, and i understand Nash screwed up on that one. And another thing. Most of the people here complain about how badly the writers are biased, how much the writers have nothing to write about...Don Cherry knows a lot about hockey, but in my humble opinion, there is not a reporter that is more biased than Cherry. There is not a reporter that talks through his hat more than Don Cherry. He let's emotion kick in when he criticizes something, making him the most subjective journalist / analyst ever on TV. Emotion doesn't have its place when you are supposed to report on something. Otherwise, it makes you say unreliable information, most of the time misinterpreted and really badly presented to the viewers, who will believe what he says because he knows that much.
James (Posted 2008-05-21 16:29:24)
One, what difference does it make to anyone if you do or don't touch the conference championship trophy whenever you make it to the finals? That is the main purpose of the playoffs, to get to the "big dance". People who whine, complain and make a big deal out of it obviously have nothing better to do with their time than wasting it by picking on irrelevant elements of the game like Mr. Cambell here. Two, Don Cherry is not a moron, pinhead or whatever derogatory term you wish to call him. There's a reason he has been going strong for 28 years on one of the highest Canadian rated T.V show. He speaks his mind to the millions of people who watch it like myself every Saturday. Those who call him things like a "moron" are one themselves for not reconizing the success he has had on the C.B.C. for many memorable years. Hopefully, this ragging on one of Canada's most iconic figures will end soon. It likely won't because someone will always resent his success on the C. B.C., as well as the nerve he has for speaking what he has on his mind, something that many people lack now-a-days.
steven Noble (Posted 2008-05-21 14:32:12)
Okay folks, that's it, everything Don Cherry says is correct, take it at face value and repeat it ad naseum: no team with heavy european or french influence can go far in the playoffs, europeans have no heart, anyone who wears a visor is a wimp, the earth is no warmer than it's ever been despite the facts, it's okay for Darcy Tucker and Kirk Maltby to run around like an idiot agitating people but not for anyone with the last name Rutuu, Detroit is a "redneck town" despite having never lived there, he is the modern day man of the people — except when the millionaire is relaxing in his Mississauga Rd. mansion. Sure he tells it like it is, but you guys that say Don always tells the truth or speaks accurately are idiots. Actually he doesn't tell it like it is, he tells it like he thinks it is. There's a big difference.
Crash Davis (Posted 2008-05-21 13:33:20)
I'm going to quote Crash Davis from Bull Durham in regards to superstitions. "If you believe you're playing well because you're getting laid, or because you're not getting laid, or because you wear women's underwear, then you ARE! And you should know that!"
No one wants to settle for Conference Champs. Lord Stanley's Cup is the only trophy that matters, and if you think not touching the others gets you there, then don't touch the other trophies.
The LA Lakers don't hang division or championship banners, only NBA championship banners. Some people just accept excellence and nothing else.
Daniel David (Posted 2008-05-21 11:45:57)
Agreed with some exceptions. If i was a wing, I wouldnt touch it. Screw that, their goal is to WIN THE CUP from the start of the season. The Penguins on the other hand, it is a major accomplishment for that organization to get to the Stanley Cup Finals, so if I was a Pen I would touch it since you have earned an Eastern Conference Banner for your Melon Arena. Good Day, sid the kid big mistake not touching it, cause your not touching the cup.
JR (Posted 2008-05-21 11:34:55)
Being a long time hockey fan, and subscriber to the Hockey News, I have watched Don Cherry since he came on and read THN longer than I can remember and I can safely state in my opinion there is only one "clown" getting a media forum to state misinformed opinions and that would be the name in the author's bock.
Don Cherry although not politically correct does back up his statements with proof on most occasions, and his credentials in hockey I'm sure surpass that of scholastic writer. At least Mr. Cherry will state what he feels about someone or an issue, right or wrong, and doesn't worry about being on the wrong side of NHL Execs because heavn forbid you'd have to make an article based on experience rather than simply writing down facts from a rulebook or the HHL VP's blog.
Calling him a clown is totally unprofessional and unnecessary in my opinion. Stick to what Bill Daly allows you to write instead of trying to grab ratings fro yourself by attacking others that have been in the game at ground level for their entire adult life. Shameful.
Steven Noble (Posted 2008-05-21 11:28:40)
Dan, Don Cherry can be entertaining. But, just because you like his style doesn't mean he's always right. I actually like Cherry myself, I grew up watching him, but no matter who's doing the talking I've never yet come across someone who I agree with, no matter what, without question. For instance, when I was 14 I agreed with his anti-European tirades. Now I think they're sadly outdated, irrelevant, and wrong. But I do agree with his point about equipment, you know the segments when he pulls out the elbow pad that looks like it came from Robocop and slams it against the his desk... I don't think the point of the article was dissing Don as much as it was to say Don's wrong on this particular point.
Jason Coleman (Posted 2008-05-21 11:06:41)
You're missing the point about superstition. I'm sure you'd agree that there is such a thing as psychological effects. Whether or not there is such a thing as luck, if you believe in luck, and you believe doing some action results in bad luck, you'll react to that belief. It'll take your head out of the game. You'll lose focus. You'll create failure. It's a well known effect in psychology that people react to things they believe to be true as though they were, regardless of if they actually are or not.
So not touching the trophy keeps your head in the game. It builds team unity(none of them touch it). It affects team morale if he does. Unless you don't think those things have any affect on the game either?
It's not about respect or disrespect of the trophy though you may see it that way. It's about staying focused on the big prize and doing whatever you think it takes to get it.
Dan (Posted 2008-05-21 10:54:09)
I love it when media folk rip on Don Cherry. You all think because he wears goofy suits and yells all the time that he is stupid. Well as a "true" hockey fan i think he is great. Don tells it like it is, he doesn't say what people want to hear.Don looks at the game in a true, original 6, CANADIAN way. He knows and i know that Gary Bettman (who looks like Homer Simpsons boss) has no hockey knowledge whatsoever. He knows and i know that hockey will never be bigger than baseball, football, and basketball. SO WHAT i like it that way. Quit trying to change the game evry 3 months so hockey can get a newer fan-base. WHAT ABOUT THE FANS WHO LOVE THE GAME NOW ??? Every time the league "tinkers" with the game true hockey fans get disgusted. And for my last point, what does a sold out crowd do when a hockey fight breaks out ??? They stand up and cheer. So as a TRUE hockey fan my one wish would be to see Don Cherry replace Gary Bettman as commisioner, and see new teams in Quebec, Winnipeg, and Hamilton, not Las Vegas and Kansas City. And while we are at it get rid of teams in Atlanta,Florida,Tampa Bay.
DON CHERRY FOREVER !!!!!
Brad (Posted 2008-05-21 10:41:34)
Whether or not you like the rule, it doesn't make much difference to that Gold medal game; Sure, Russia scored the winner on that PP, but then Canada had also scored their 3rd goal on a 5-on-3 (initiated by Fedorov's delay of game that was almost a mirror image of the Nash shot); I think the Russian's may have committed another one, but I don't believe Canada scored on that one. It's an annoying rule when it goes against you, but this time it went against both teams, it just stung more for Canada.
As for the rule itself, I agree with those that suggest it should be treated like an icing (including the no line change). I suppose there is a danger of it being abused if that were to change, but it's one of those silly penalties that I think the game could probably do without. There are bigger issues facing the NHL, though, so I don't expect to see this changed.
Steven Noble (Posted 2008-05-21 10:38:45)
I don't much care whether a player touches the conference championship trophy or not, but Cherry does cry a lot about this rule. I actually disagree Casey. I don't think "many, many hockey fans" hate the rule like Cherry does. Either way it amounts to crying and whining, which is supposedly something Cherry has disdain for. Suck it up. It's a rule, it has it's pros and cons but it didn't "cost Canada the gold." Even GM Steve Yzerman after disagreed with that statement, saying that the rule can be bittersweet but he actually likes the rule. Letting Russia comeback and score a pair of goals when they were up 4-2 cost them the game. So let's have a little perspective. And just for the record, Campbell may not be on CBC, but he is one of the most well-read hockey writers in the world. Whether you like him in The Hockey News I always like that as a Toronto Star writer he'd always keep an unbiased eye on the Leafs, which is tough to find in that town.
Casey (Posted 2008-05-21 10:21:53)
Ken, Cherry's opinion is shared by many, many hockey fans. There are perfectly rational arguments on both sides. For instance, I entirely disagree with your thoughts on touching the conference championship trophy. Teasing Don for the too many men penalty is horribly unoriginal, and just makes you seem envious of a man who has reached the pinnacle of the hockey media world. Don has a name that is recognized. He's loved by the public.
Ken (Posted 2008-05-21 00:27:50)
I don't see why the media make such a big deal out of it. Doc Emerick mentioned it three times during the presentations for both conference trophies and there were at least two different cameras focused on Lidstrom's hand not touching the trophy.
jim (Posted 2008-05-20 23:28:00)
I fail to see how celebrating the winning of a conference somehow disparages the glory of winning the Stanley Cup. Of course, these guys want to win the Cup! But why should being happy about getting to the final dance mean you're satisfied with only that?
But, the most pathetic thing about the captains not touching the conference trophies (besides the extent to which I hate it) is that, so far as I know, it has its roots in Cup Final losses. Lindros was the first one not touch the Prince of Wales Trophy and look what it got him. I don't know about Derian Hatcher or Mike Peca, but the next one that I know of who didn't touch it was Kariya. That's 0 for 2; what a way to demonstrate that 'those trophies don't matter.' How did this 'tradition' even get off the ground?
They might as well retire the trophies if the captains don't want them; and even though the captains can do what they want, ignoring these decades-old trophies is a bigger slap in the face of tradition - which the NHL claims to hold so dear - than it is for the captain to do something as simple as carry it to the dressing room which was a given just over a decade ago.
Billwinkle (Posted 2008-05-20 20:25:44)
Hockey has so much tradition: the beards, goalie stuff, the octopus. I like this stuff, just like nobody talks to a pitcher in a ho hitter.
What is the purpose of a trophy for a semi-final win anyway?
Chris (Posted 2008-05-20 20:16:14)
Don Cherry makes a lot more money than you do. Enough said. And did you ever think that maybe Nick Lidstrom didn't lift that trophy because he can't? Maybe he's just not physically strong enough? I bet you feel real silly now for telling everyone on thn.com that Lidstrom is a sissy.
Flea Frusciante (Posted 2008-05-20 18:57:17)
In scientific terms Don Cherry whining and complaining about silly little things that don't matter is roughly equivalent to Ken Campbell whining and complaining about silly little things that don't matter. For further information please refer to the parable of the pot and the kettle.
Josh Miller (Posted 2008-05-20 18:06:08)
The reason they penalize players for shooting the puck over the glass in the defensive zone, but not the neutral or offensive zones, is because nobody ever "intentionally" shoots the puck out of play in those zones -- only when trying to relieve pressure in the defensive zone. I do not think it is such a bad rule...players should be able to control this action, just as they are expected to control their sticks. Many high-sticking penalties are accidental...should we abolish this rule too? Furthermore, I think any rule that discourages players from firing pucks towards paying customers is a good one, is it not?
Web (Posted 2008-05-20 17:09:33)
There's no doubt that Don Cherry is a "personality". However, Cherry is like WWE wrestling. Fun to look at and listen to if you're in to such things, but no one really takes it seriously.
Mr. William (Posted 2008-05-20 16:43:31)
It sure is a stupid rule. Why not make it like icing where you don't get to change? I don't really see a difference between shooting the puck over the glass or shooting it down the ice when you are under pressure. Besides, most of the time these penalties occur the defender is not under pressure but becomes a victim of a bad bounce, bad ice, or just plain bad luck. If you look closely at the Nash penalty the other day he was just trying to softly chip the puck out but unfortunetely it was such a soft shot he accidently hit it again on the follow through which is what propelled it high into the stands. If you think he fired it into the crowd to relieve pressure or prevent a scoring chance you are crazy. What a horrible way to lose a game.
Kevin I (Posted 2008-05-20 16:27:35)
Who really cares whether they touch the trophies or not Ken, let them do what they want, if they think it helps than do it. Peace of mind let them have it. As far as Cherry goes, yeah he says a pile of stupid stuff that I dont agree with at all, but he's been on this rule from day 1. I do enjoy however reading articles by journalists make fun of a guy who has actually played hockey and won coach of the year in the nhl and ahl. Grant it Cherry is getting older but the way you guys talk down about him is what is really disgusting in my mind. Ken you talked about a lack of respect for the trophies, how about you guys start by giving a little to Cherry. You dont have to like him, but you have to realize he has accomplished things you can only dream of. So you et to write about it to bring him down. You are the disrespectful ones.
Chris (Posted 2008-05-20 16:11:58)
Don Cherry has a great and valid point. the rule IS STUPID. you can flip the puck out in the offensive zone & the netural zone and it's not a penalty but if you do it in the defensive zone suddenly that is a penalty? how does that make any sense? it was another gimmick idea.
the NHL needs a dose of reality. there can not be a "skilled play" every single time someone touches the puck. I guess when the final scoring figures come out and goals per game drop by .0001, panic will set in and another dumb rule will come out. the NHL is a laughing joke
Mikey (Posted 2008-05-20 15:49:21)
I really have no idea why in the heck you are bashing don cherry. His point is correct and the fact that when most of the people who flip the puck out of the zone and over the glass are dead tired and make a mental mistake. Ok so maybe the NHL did make the rule so it would provide better passing and outlets out of the zone but think about it, its really not that bright of an idea, and most of the previous offenders were goalies and thats why they had the penalty first. This has cost the Sabres a possible cup run, Canada a gold medal (even tho the russians out played us last 2 periods) and Montreal a shot at taking out New Jersey. All because the poor guys are so darn tired they make a mental mistake and these boys are darn good hockey players who make the mistake... but it IS a STUPID rule no matter how you slice it and you really shouldn't blast an icon for voicing HIS opinion... no matter how BIG or SMALL the audience is... he does make solid points.
Daryl Moncrief (Posted 2008-05-20 14:52:25)
I LOVE all this "I don't want this trophy, I want the cup" snobbery!! It's unique in sports, and really emphasizes the importance of the Stanley Cup Finals. Other things I love about this sport are the names of the trophies. Unlike baseball, basketball or football, there are real names for those trophies. It invites interest. I think the dumbest thing the NHL did was to remove the names of the conferences and divisions to the generic east, west, atlantic, north, south etc.
As someone who came to Hockey during my college years, I was proud to become interested in a league that honored its history more than any other major sport.
As for Cherry. I couldn't agree more!! What an imbecile (in every way imaginable!) The NHL has vastly improved the game with the rule changes and penalty enforcement. There can still be improvement with goalie equipment and possibly something resembling a three second rule for defensive play around the blue line, but overall things are much better.
Pat (Posted 2008-05-20 14:51:55)
c'mon man, seriously?? Do you have nothing better to write about other than Don Cherry and not touching the conference finals trophy?? Cherry, although not always right (nobody is), is a personality and does have insights to the game.
Advertisement
Should the Canadiens be retiring Patrick Roy's No. 33?
"The big thing with Carlo — and I tell him that every day — is that 'You're not in very good shape.'"
- Leafs coach Ron Wilson on the conditioning of Carlo Colaiacovo, which Wilson believes is one of the reason's the defensman is oft-injuried.
Our Partners
The Hockey News Corporation. All Rights Reserved © 2008 Transcontinental
Standards: XHTML 1.0 STRICT + CSS 2. V 1.5 17.09.2008
