It's Here! The Thread For the 2003-04 NHL Regular Season!

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

it can, but I don't think it will.
Bertuzzi certainly appears to be sincerely remorseful about what happen. He still does deserve what he got, but I don't think they'll drag it out longer.

I also have a feeling that Steve Moore would not want it dragged out longer either.

I am dissapointed in one thing involving this. Marc Crawford deserved a suspension.

I agree. I don't think they will drag it out any longer (and I don't think they should). That said, I don't see how anyone could really view this as the NHL dropping the ball.

[samifan24]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I agree. I don't think they will drag it out any longer (and I don't think they should). That said, I don't see how anyone could really view this as the NHL dropping the ball.

They dropped the ball because they set a precedent with the McSorely incident and did not follow through. I don't understand why everyone feels I'm such a minority here when ESPN's Terry Frei called for a similar suspension and over 50% of ESPN Sports Nation voters felt that a one year suspension was appropriate

edit- to include links

[Samdari]

But, the McSorley suspension being for one year was like an NFL contract - its length was greatly exaggerated. McSorley was never going to play past that season (he was 57 at the time) and everyone knew it. He was, like Bertuzzi, effectively suspended for the rest of the current season.

[samifan24]

Originally Posted by Samdari

But, the McSorley suspension being for one year was like an NFL contract - its length was greatly exaggerated. McSorley was never going to play past that season (he was 57 at the time) and everyone knew it. He was, like Bertuzzi, effectively suspended for the rest of the current season.

Just because McSorley was going to retire does not change the fact that he was suspended for a year.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by samifan24

Just because McSorley was going to retire does not change the fact that he was suspended for a year.

That is a very uninformed view. The people making the decision on the suspension knew he was going to retire. While I don't claim to know they did this, that knowledge allowed them to suspend McSorley longer than they might have had that not been the case. If they had suspended him for the rest of that year, he still would have missed the same number of games, and lost the same amount of money, as a one year suspension, or even a lifetime ban. To suggest that it is impossible that knowledge affected the announced length of that suspension is very naiive.

EDIT: And I do believe that the uncertainty of next season played a part in them leaving it open ended. I think he will miss additional games next season if it goes off on time. If they don't play again until 2005-2006, he will likely be reinstated for the beginning.

[samifan24]

Originally Posted by Samdari

That is a very uninformed view. The people making the decision on the suspension knew he was going to retire. While I don't claim to know they did this, that knowledge allowed them to suspend McSorley longer than they might have had that not been the case. If they had suspended him for the rest of that year, he still would have missed the same number of games, and lost the same amount of money, as a one year suspension, or even a lifetime ban. To suggest that it is impossible that knowledge affected the announced length of that suspension is very naiive.

EDIT: And I do believe that the uncertainty of next season played a part in them leaving it open ended. I think he will miss additional games next season if it goes off on time. If they don't play again until 2005-2006, he will likely be reinstated for the beginning.

It is not naive at all. Your argument is premised upon the NHL "knowing" McSorely was going to retire and therefore punishing him for a longer period of time. If they knew he was going to retire, why would they both to suspend him longer than they had to suspend him? If you are pointing that my statement is flawed, then you must acknowledge that your own is likewise flawed. You admit that you don't know if the NHL intended to suspend McSorley "knowing" he would retire, but you also must admit that neither of us truly know the McSorley incident. My only point is that I believe the league set a precedent with the McSorley incident and did not follow through with this incident. Let's agree to disagree here.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by samifan24

If they knew he was going to retire, why would they both to suspend him longer than they had to suspend him?

To attempt to send a stronger message than the penalty they actually imposed. By announcing they suspended McSorley for a year while preventing him from playing in, and being paid for, about 20 games, it looks to the press, public and other players like they were coming down harder on him than they actually did. Can you really not see the benefit in that?

[samifan24]

Originally Posted by Samdari

To attempt to send a stronger message than the penalty they actually imposed. By announcing they suspended McSorley for a year while preventing him from playing in, and being paid for, about 20 games, it looks to the press, public and other players like they were coming down harder on him than they actually did. Can you really not see the benefit in that?

Well, apparently the "benefit" of the suspension's appearance did a lot to deter Mr. Bertuzzi.

[samifan24]

dola-

Let's just agree to disagree. We are not going to convince each other so there's no point in picking each other apart over the whole thing. We agree that the Bertuzzi incident was terrible for the sport but we don't agree on the punishment. My point in bringing the whole thing up was to defend myself against the perception that I am in the minority when I believe Bertuzzi should have been suspended for a year.

[Chief Rum]

More evidence, FWIW, that you are in the minority. I agree with everyone else who has disagreed with you.

Everyone knows the NHL treats its stars different than its thugs. I think this suspension is absolutely catastrophic to both Bertuzzi and the Canucks, far more than anythung McSorley's suspension caused to himself or his teammates.

It could also still last a year, depending on what they do for next season (although I agree with the assertion he probably won't be suspended again just before training camp--the NHL will have enough bad news with the labor dispute just two weeks away).

For that reason (Bertuzzi being a star), this is almost a precedent as well, rather than something along the same lines as McSorley. It shows that anyone--even the stars--are going to get a serious suspension for actions like this. It's easy for players to dismiss McSorley and his incident because he was a known thug and about to retire. Bertuzzi was supposedly protected by the league code ofr conduct about stars. The only league worse about protecting its stars is the NBA.

In that respect, the NHL sent a whole different sort of message, and now everyone knows that even the stars will be dealt with harshly. Forgive me for disagreeing here, but I can't see a way in heck the NHL dropped the ball on this. This is a fair punishment, even if Bertuzzi doesn't get suspended again in September.

Before you leap on your ESPN poll defense again, you might want to consider something. ESPN attracts all sports fans, not just hockey fans. I would argue that the sports fan that doesn't know hockey actually far dwarfs the number that do. They don't watch hockey and probably for related reasons, don't like the violence or fighting that goes on in the sport. That's another issue that has been shown in other threads to be very divisive, even among hockey fans. So you know how it must be with all sports fans.

They all see this incident, with the pool of blood, and don't understand what kind of punishement this is to the team and to Bertuzzi, because they don't know hokcey. They have only bothered to watch one hockey play all year, and it was this one. So it makes sense that poll is extremely skewed to a huge punishemnt. In other words, it's not a scientific poll, or necessarily representative of an objective observer. You might want to try and find a Gallup poll of the general public instead. That would have more evidentiary support than a ESPN poll of all the basketball beenie boppers, drunk NASCAR and NFL fans, and old codger baseball fans that haven't watched any hockey this season.

CR

[bbor]

The suspension length sounds about right to me.The thingi worry about when they do revisit the suspension next season most of the furor will have died down and he may be allowed to return to action too early.He should sit out at least as many games as Mcsorely did(23).

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Before you leap on your ESPN poll defense again, you might want to consider something. ESPN attracts all sports fans, not just hockey fans. I would argue that the sports fan that doesn't know hockey actually far dwarfs the number that do. They don't watch hockey and probably for related reasons, don't like the violence or fighting that goes on in the sport.

Agreed. I'm not a fan of the "circle the wagons" approach, and I'm not trying to exclude people from the discussion (least of all samifan, who does knows the sport). But I'm getting tired of all the hand-wringing about this hit from people who just have no interest at all in the NHL. They don't watch the sport, they don't know the sport, but there they are talking about what the league should do about "that Brazzuti guy".

I thought David Schonfeild put it pretty well on ESPN.com today.

I was watching SportsCenter on Tuesday night with my wife, who is a big hockey fan, when the Bertuzzi hit was shown again.

Her comment was especially revealing: "Now columnists everywhere who haven't seen a hockey game all year will be writing on this."

Hockey is a tough game. Sometimes it is a violent game. It is nowhere near as violent as boxing or football. A hard check along the boards or even a sucker punch to the back of the neck don't normally have the same potential for injury -- or death -- as a pitcher deliberately throwing a 95-mph fastball at a batter's head or race-car drivers screaming at 230 mph down the backstretch at Daytona.

Nobody gets outraged when a defensive lineman delivers a crushing to a quarterback two seconds after he has thrown the ball or when a wide receiver gets clotheslined in the head.

Yet ... columnists everywhere will be ranting and raving about this play, pounding their fists on their imaginary typewriters and acting -- like they do once a year -- that they actually know something about hockey.

As Maple Leafs coach Pat Quinn said when asked about Bertuzzi's hit, "Payback has been part of the game for 100 years." It is what it is. Steve Moore knew the game when he delivered a cheap shot to Canucks captain Markus Naslund last month. Avalanche coach Tony Granato knows the game -- he was once suspended 15 games for a stick to the face.

I'm not defending Bertuzzi's hit. It obviously crossed the line of fair play or even "payback" play and is unacceptable. If he receives a long suspension and misses the playoffs, it's a costly blow to a team with Stanley Cup hopes, and even Bertuzzi's teammates would admit that no attempt at payback makes that defensible.

But if you don't know the game, keep your ranting to something else.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by samifan24

dola-

Let's just agree to disagree. We are not going to convince each other so there's no point in picking each other apart over the whole thing. We agree that the Bertuzzi incident was terrible for the sport but we don't agree on the punishment. My point in bringing the whole thing up was to defend myself against the perception that I am in the minority when I believe Bertuzzi should have been suspended for a year.

Well, I certainly don't think you need to defend yourself for being in the minority. I encourage you to continue to have the courage to stick to your own opinion (as misguided as it is whenever it conflicts with mine) rather than change your thinking simply to be part of the majority. I respect you far more for continuing to argue your (clearly indefensible) position than if you capitulated simply because noone agrees with you. (I would much prefer that you changed your opinion being suitably dazzled by the wisdom of my arguments).

A couple of notes on our debate. As for the NHL convincing people that they suspended McSorley for a year, it was woefully ineffective - nobody bought it as a year suspension. Analysts called it a ~20 game suspension from the minute it was announced, and many (including Bill Clement, who was just on Tony K) remember it as such.

And as far as the effectiveness of harsh punishments as deterrents, it is truly impossible to measure. We cannot know how many times players were dissuaded from committing extreme violent acts in the four years since the McSorley incident. This could easily turn into the death penalty thread, but suffice it to say that when people act without any consideration of the consequences, the severity of potential consequences do not matter. I think that was the case here.

[samifan24]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Before you leap on your ESPN poll defense again, you might want to consider something. ESPN attracts all sports fans, not just hockey fans. I would argue that the sports fan that doesn't know hockey actually far dwarfs the number that do. They don't watch hockey and probably for related reasons, don't like the violence or fighting that goes on in the sport. That's another issue that has been shown in other threads to be very divisive, even among hockey fans. So you know how it must be with all sports fans.

They all see this incident, with the pool of blood, and don't understand what kind of punishement this is to the team and to Bertuzzi, because they don't know hokcey. They have only bothered to watch one hockey play all year, and it was this one. So it makes sense that poll is extremely skewed to a huge punishemnt. In other words, it's not a scientific poll, or necessarily representative of an objective observer. You might want to try and find a Gallup poll of the general public instead. That would have more evidentiary support than a ESPN poll of all the basketball beenie boppers, drunk NASCAR and NFL fans, and old codger baseball fans that haven't watched any hockey this season.

CR

Well I have a couple of issues with your statement. First of all, of course the ESPN poll is not a scientific poll, just as those here on FOFC are not scientific polls. However, I feel that the ESPN poll is still an accurate reflection of the views of over 100,000 sports fans, and yes, you are right, who may or may not know or follow hockey as those of us here do. Nonetheless, 100,000 sports fans feel that the a year's suspension was an appropriate penalty, so I feel it remains an accurate study of sports fans in general. I doubt a Gallup poll would exist and I think you know that. As it stands now, it remains the largest poll on the issue I've seen and, I believe, continues to reflect my sentiment that I am not in the minority of sports fans when I say that Bertuzzi deserved a longer penalty. I will admit that the poll is inherently flawed, but what other evidence do I have? As far as I know, the ESPN poll remains the largest poll on the issue. I am clearly in the minority here, but on a larger scale I still believe that due to a lack of contrasting evidence (scientific or otherwise) I remain in the majority of sports fans in general.

edit- I am willing to acknowledge that everyone here disagrees with me, and now Barry Melrose disagrees with me as well, but I still do not believe I am in the minority of sports fans overall.

[samifan24]

Maple Leafs-

I admitted that Schonfield's wife's reaction would be the norm several posts ago.

"As I stated previously, this is the kind of thing which makes it on the nightly news, the same news stations which often do not even show highlights from NHL games on a regular basis."

That's the worst part of the whole situation. Bertuzzi's actions give the sport a bad image.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by samifan24

That's the worst part of the whole situation. Bertuzzi's actions give the sport a bad image.

Exactly. And that's a shame, because this isn't really a hockey problem. It's a pro sports problem.

We all thought it was great when Clemens finally had to step into the batter's box against the Mets. What if Estes had him in the temple? We would have all acted horrified, talked about the black eye, how could this happen, etc. But he didn't, so we all think it's a case of standing up for your team, and honoring the code. Great entertainment!

Sometimes things go too far and bad things happen. When they do, there are consequences and so there should be. But the media needs to stop pretending that this could only happen in the NHL.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Ahh... Gets more interesting.

From TSN

"Mr. Bertuzzi will be required to meet with Commissioner Bettman prior to the start of training camp for the 2004-05 season, at which point Mr. Bertuzzi's eligibility will be reviewed in light of all the available facts at that time, including Mr. Moore's physical status and the progression of his recovery."

So, in essence, the suspension could last longer...

I think this is just thrown in to placate those wanting a longer sentence. And I'm really glad they did it. It leaves open the option to suspend him longer, but I'm pretty sure they won't. I think that, even if there was no work stoppage at all, by the time next season was getting ready to start, cooler heads would have prevailed and being suspended from the regular season and playoffs will be enough. But right now, emotions are running too high for even the most level headed to judge clearly.

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Samdari

Well, I certainly don't think you need to defend yourself for being in the minority. I encourage you to continue to have the courage to stick to your own opinion (as misguided as it is whenever it conflicts with mine) rather than change your thinking simply to be part of the majority. I respect you far more for continuing to argue your (clearly indefensible) position than if you capitulated simply because noone agrees with you. (I would much prefer that you changed your opinion being suitably dazzled by the wisdom of my arguments).

This is how most "debates" on FOFC go with the regular text what people say and the parenthetical text as what they are thinking

Originally Posted by samifan24

Well I have a couple of issues with your statement. First of all, of course the ESPN poll is not a scientific poll, just as those here on FOFC are not scientific polls. However, I feel that the ESPN poll is still an accurate reflection of the views of over 100,000 sports fans, and yes, you are right, who may or may not know or follow hockey as those of us here do. Nonetheless, 100,000 sports fans feel that the a year's suspension was an appropriate penalty, so I feel it remains an accurate study of sports fans in general. ... I am clearly in the minority here, but on a larger scale I still believe that due to a lack of contrasting evidence (scientific or otherwise) I remain in the majority of sports fans in general.

I think the problem with this argument is "who gives a flying eff what the average sports fan thinks". Sounds silly in the "why isn't the NHL trying to market itself to every sports fan" sense but, really, a lot of the people posting there are in for their yearly "the NHL sucks" message just like everytime there's an NBA thread here. If the NHL can keep its fans happy and not piss off anyone else too terribly, then they probably did ok. And by "not piss off anyone", I'm referring to that fact that of the 100K who voted, at least two thirds of those had never heard of and in two months won't rememberBertuzzi's name.

And besides, what's wrong with playing devil's advocate. Whether you believe what you are saying or not, it's damn fun and it just might get people thinking about something they hadn't thought about before

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

I thought David Schonfeild put it pretty well on ESPN.com today.

And now, thanks to your post, I know that I think Schonfeild put it very very well.

[Draft Dodger]

cool!

looks like I'm going to see the Hanson Brothers at the game tomorrow night

[samifan24]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

cool!

looks like I'm going to see the Hanson Brothers at the game tomorrow night

Wow, Mullet night AND you get to see my boy Mike Cammalleri, what could be better?

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by samifan24

Wow, Mullet night AND you get to see my boy Mike Cammalleri, what could be better?

Michigan fan?

[samifan24]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

Michigan fan?

Nope, Mike Cammalleri fan. Gotta root for the little guys. The scary thing is I'm almost as old as he is.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by samifan24

Nope, Mike Cammalleri fan. Gotta root for the little guys. The scary thing is I'm almost as old as he is.

haven't seen much of him so far, even though we go to 10+ games a year, it seems that every time we go, he's either up with the Kings or hurt.
this will probably be just the 2nd time I see him.

[Karim]

So I get a letter today from the Flames wanting me to buy a pair of playoff tickets:

Round 1 & 2: $1,281.02

Round 3: $807.98 (charged upon successful completion of Round 1)

Round 4: $968.00 (charged upon successful completion of Round 2)


I'd really like to know what it costs for MLB or NBA playoff tickets. I'm a die hard Flames fan but this is just way out of my price range at the moment. I've never been to a playoff game but it will still be on TV.

[bbor]

That would be cheap for Leaf tickets.The cost of round 1 and 2 for the Flames is barely enough for round 1 in Toronto.

[Karim]

That's what I figured and the building will be sold out if we make the playoffs but it's still too rich for my blood. I paid less for 7 regular season games than I potentially would just for Round 1 (2? games).

Hopefully ticket prices go down a bit post-CBA...

[klayman]

They're just trying to make up for the last 6 years...next year playoff tickets will be cheaper

[Karim]

We're this year's Cinderella team, baby!

(At least I can dream...)

[Draft Dodger]

my wife and I got to meet the Hanson Brothers the other night, which was pretty cool. they were really nice.

she and I and our son had dressed up as them 2 Halloweens ago, and we had them sign a picture of that...

[sterlingice]

What's going on over there in Pittsburgh that, after losing 18 straight, they have points in 8 of their last 10 games?

SI

[sachmo71]

Did anyone see this strangeness?

Commissioner's Decision Re: Game 7
The British Columbia Hockey League has issued the following statement regarding Game 7 of the Powell River at Nanaimo Game, Saturday, March 13, 2004.








Circumstances:

At 1:20 remaining of the 3rd period in the above game where the teams were tied 3-3, Powell River Goaltender Eric Bourbeau left his crease to race a Nanaimo player for a loose puck. The goaltender reached the puck first and subsequently froze the puck.



At that time, the referee stopped the play and assessed the Goaltender a minor penalty for Delay of Game under rule 58 (b) FALLING ON THE PUCK.



Rule 58 (b):

A minor penalty shall be assessed any goaltender who, while outside his crease, deliberately falls on or gathers the puck into his body, or holds or places the puck against any part of the goal, thus delaying the game unnecessarily.



Specifically, in the Hockey Canada Referee’s Case Book, Situation 3 – Point 4:

The goaltender comes out of her crease to beat an attacking player to the puck and simply jumps on the puck, causing a stoppage in play. No warning shall be issued. A minor for Delay of Game shall be assessed the Goaltender.



After some discussion amongst the on-ice officials, the officials have reported that they were uncertain as to whether or not this would be a penalty shot due to the fact that this infraction occurred in the last 2:00 of the game. Their discussion took some time, and eventually a penalty shot was awarded to Nanaimo. The Nanaimo player subsequently scored on the penalty shot and ultimately won the game 4-3.



Upon completion of the game and after reviewing the rule book, it was determined discovered that the penalty shot should not have been awarded under rule 58 (b). From the rule book regarding Penalty Shots and Delay of Game in the last 2 minutes or overtime:



Rule 35. Penalty Shot - Situation 1 Referee’s Case Book

A Penalty Shot may be awarded due to any of the following illegal acts:



1. Rule 19 f

2. Rule 24 c

3. Rule 55 c

4. Rule 55 d

5. Rule 55 e

6. Rule 58 c

7. Rule 61 c

8. Rule 70 e

9. Rule 78 a

10. Rule 82 a

11. Rule 85 d



Rule 58 b – the infraction does not apply.





Upon notification of the game protest, the league office contacted the Referee-in-Chief of BCAHA and asked him to investigate the application of the rules. After his investigation, he determined that the incorrect call had been made and that a penalty shot should not have been awarded in this case. He notified the BCHL Office that the wrong call had been made.



The League Office and the Referee in Chief have received written statements from 2 of the 3 on-ice officials including the referee.



Commissioner’s Ruling:

The BC Hockey League has an obligation to its members, players, and fans to ensure the integrity of the game. The correct application of the rules is paramount to the fairness of the league.



Considering that the rules, in this case, at such a key time of a very important game for both teams were applied incorrectly, the League Office upholds Powell River’s Protest and directs the disposition of the game as follows:



The Nanaimo Clippers will secure ice at the earliest possible date.
Both teams will appear at the designated time to resume play at the 18:40 mark of the 3rd Period. Eric Bourbeau will be assessed a 2 minute minor penalty under Rule 58 (b).
The play will resume from that point (1:20 left) and will conclude when a winner is determined through the remainder of regulation time or in overtime if necessary.
Prior to commencing play, both teams will be allowed a 15 minute warm-up. After a 5 minute no clean break, the play will commence.
The officials will be assigned by RIC and will begin play – with a face-off in the Powell River end at the circle nearest the infraction.


The Nanaimo Clippers have the opportunity to Appeal the Decision of the Commissioner and the League will provide further information as soon as it is available.

Has anything like this happened before?

[henry296]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

What's going on over there in Pittsburgh that, after losing 18 straight, they have points in 8 of their last 10 games?

SI

The team has played hard all season long. During the long losing streak, there were few games that they we blown out. Once they broke the streak, they got some confidence. Plus, they have won some games where their goalie has stolen the game, which never hurts.

Todd

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

Has anything like this happened before?

Well, the Pine Tar incident comes to mind. But I've never heard of it happening in hockey.

Does this mean I can still protest the non-call on Gretzky's high stick in 1993? Where do I fill out the paperwork?

[sachmo71]

No Leafs, you can't. If you did, the hockey would would be subjected to another few years of "No Goal!" calls from Buffalo fans, which would be sad. Very sad.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

No Leafs, you can't. If you did, the hockey would would be subjected to another few years of "No Goal!" calls from Buffalo fans, which would be sad. Very sad.

Not sure what you mean. I've been curled up in the fetal position since 1993. Did the NHL even continue after the Gretzky incident?

[bbor]

A Montreal v Toronto final in 93 would have been the cats ass.

Speaking of Buffalo as you guys are..how bout that comeback by the Leafers last night?

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by bbor

A Montreal v Toronto final in 93 would have been the cats ass.

Speaking of Buffalo as you guys are..how bout that comeback by the Leafers last night?

Poor, poor, Buffalo.

[Maple Leafs]

If I was driving down the street and saw Trevor Kidd waiting at the crosswalk, I would run him over with my car.

[klayman]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

If I was driving down the street and saw Trevor Kidd waiting at the crosswalk, I would run him over with my car.

But, (to quote an old joke) you would go right between his legs.

[Maple Leafs]

Great article about what it's like to be me:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/columns/story?id=1760855

[bbor]

They interviewed Rick Viave for this article??

Dude is so dumb he does'nt even know how to spell puck.

BTW...Damian Cox is an @ss clown.

[sachmo71]

Interesting article on Ken Dryden calling for change in hockey:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/column...jim&id=1761772

[Karim]

Most of that article were exerpts from HNIC's the "Satellite Hotstove" from last Saturday's game.

[Maple Leafs]

(From the "Don't you have anything better to do?" file...)

Ottawa City Council has passed a bylaw, banning the wearing of Maple Leaf jerseys in the Corel Centre.

Background: Each time the Leafs play in Ottawa, about half the fans are cheering for Toronto, and they're usually much louder. This results in some strange sites -- "Go Leafs Go" chants, Daniel Alfredsson being booed, etc. But the oddest is the way that thousands of fans are wearing their Leaf jerseys.

Anyways, it's a source of great annoyance for Sens fans, and now City Council has done something about. The bylaw is meants to be tongue-in-cheek, but anyone in a Leaf jersey will be asked to make a donation to the Ottawa foodbank.

Reaction up here has ranged from "That's marginally clever, I guess" to "That's just stupid" to "Um, wouldn't it be better to ask everyone to donate instead?"

[klayman]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Ottawa City Council has passed a bylaw, banning the wearing of Maple Leaf jerseys in the Corel Centre.

So do the players have to donate as well?

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by klayman

So do the players have to donate as well?

Shirts vs. skins.

[klayman]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Shirts vs. skins.

That might be a little hard on Belfour. Kidd should be alright though

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by klayman

That might be a little hard on Belfour. Kidd should be alright though

"Trevor, wouldn't it hurt if the puck hit you?"
"You know, it never came up..."

[klayman]

Looks like the Leafs have made a response.

TORONTO (CP) -- Take that, Ottawa.

The Maple Leafs announced Friday they would donate $5,000 to the Ottawa Food Bank and Toronto's Daily Bread Food Bank in an effort to support the thousands of Leaf fans who want to wear their Toronto jerseys at the April 3 game in Ottawa.

Ottawa City Council announced earlier this week that Leaf jerseys would be banned from the April 3 game at the Corel Centre unless Toronto fans made a contribution to the Ottawa Food Bank.

"We look forward to Leafs fans filling the Corel Centre wearing their blue and white jerseys and supporting their favourite team," John Lashway, vice-president of communications and community development for the Leafs, said Friday in a statement. "The Leafs are strongly committed to giving back to the community and have been a long-time supporter of the Daily Bread Food Bank in Toronto.

"It's great to see the Ottawa city council getting involved in its community in this manner. Our organization looks forward to joining with our fans to support those efforts."

The Leafs are also challenging the Senators to meet or exceed their financial donation to the food banks in Toronto and Ottawa.

The Leafs added they had no plans of enacting a canned food admittance tax to visiting Senators fans at the Air Canada Centre.

My favorite part is the last line. As if that one can of pork 'n beans would really help the Toronto food bank anyway.