After the first week, we all know what happened. Conan’s ratings shit the bed and about a half-year after the move, NBC made the shrewd, coldhearted decision to push The Tonight Show back another 30 minutes. Conan said he’d rather walk away in a brilliantly scripted memo to the, "People of Earth." Suddenly, everyone was demonizing NBC and Leno for pulling the rug out from under Conan so quickly. The bottom line though is that NBC is in the business of making money through commercial ad sales and too few people were watching Conan’s show. He had a brief opportunity to capture a large audience in that first week but failed, fair or unfair as it may be. For me personally the show just wasn’t good enough to continue coming back once the nostalgia of the premiere week wore off. Apparently there’s a larger audience that exists for Leno and the move was made. While all this drama over NBC’s decision was unfolding, predictably, people really started paying attention to and rallying behind Conan. How will Conan react to this act of betrayal? What will he say? I feel bad for Conan. He didn’t deserve what he got.

There will always be some celebrity in crisis to hold the public’s attention. Even the most casual pop music listener knew who Chris Brown and Rihanna were after their domestic dispute became a matter of public information. And for about a month straight, everyone in America was talking about Tiger Woods after his car accident and subsequent fall from grace. Will Rihanna press charges? Will Chris Brown serve any time in jail? Will Tiger Woods be able to fix his personal life and return to golf prominence? Will Elin divorce him? People wanted to know.

It’s interesting to reflect on the paradigm people use to react to situations of crisis or injustice. On one side of the drama are the people portrayed as villains: NBC/Leno, Chris Brown, and Tiger Woods. On the other side are the wronged characters that the public always sympathizes with: Conan, Rihanna, and Elin.

Almost one-hundred-percent of the time I pay no mind to the villain. They really aren’t interesting to me. Villains are so predictable. Most of the poor decisions a villain makes are based on things they never had any control over to begin with like economics or human nature that became twisted from growing up in a lousy home. I’ve long since accepted the fact that there are people in this world with poor qualities and different objectives. The only time I ever really pay attention to a villain is when I’m trying to extract them from my life. What good does it do to point fingers and echo judgments from behind closed doors.

I’d much rather watch the character or group of characters that the public sympathizes with and see how they respond to the crisis/injustice. It’s in these characters, at these moments, that the potential exists for some of the most noble and admirable of human characteristics like compassion and perseverance to bubble to the surface.

Yesterday referee Kerry Fraser made an indefensible, egregious penalty call on a play that resulted in the rescindment of a crucial goal for the Sabres. Fans were ready to nail Fraser’s body to the cross. His action at the end of the 2ed period certainly qualifies him as a villain from the perspective of Sabres fans. And that’s what people seemed to focus on in the 3rd period and after the game was finished. Why is that? Why are people so insistent upon identifying and then fixating on the villain? Maybe it’s because when you have a villain, the character or group of characters on the other side of the table suddenly become more interesting. Or maybe we just can’t look beyond and just let go of the injustice.

The Sabres struggled on this road trip going 2-3-2 and only collecting 6 of a possible 14 points. Besides Fraser, no player or team really emerged as a villain. To me, there seems to be plenty else to focus on besides villains like for instance the tension surrounding how the Sabres will respond to their record on the road trip now that they’re back home.  The framework is set for something great to potentially come of it. Can they persevere and respond after a few tough losses? Can they pick up the bricks and rebuild the castle that seems to be crumbling?

For me, I’d always rather try and focus on the potential for good fortune to manifest itself from a grim situation. Buffalo sports fans and critics often don’t think that way, I’ve noticed. As a group, we always seem to doubt whether or not the sun will actually rise again tomorrow in our little sports world. I choose to try and not think that way. I was excited for the potential to see the Sabres respond and win after Fraser’s missed call. I was pretty much over the injustice of it all as soon as the 2nd period ended (pretty much, for the most part, kind of). At the very least I really made an effort to push it out of my mind.

It’s tough to break those habits and complaining about the unfairness of sports is fun, not to mention a pretty solid way to relieve some stress, but for the people like fans who have no control over any stage of the sports process, I think it’s more constructive to focus on the potential for success while pushing away — after learning the appropriate lessons from — the people and policies responsible for failure.

With that said, there’s something that happened during last Suday’s game between Boston and Carolina, that I have to address and that I felt strongly enough on to take Carolina’s side. It was literally less than an hour after the game was over before this video of the play was posted on Youtube.

Now…

I’m just going to throw my opinion out there right away. That was a goal even though officials ruled it otherwise. The fact that it wasn’t ruled a goal after it was closely review is laughable. But before I get into that, I just want to bring something up.

About as recently as twelve years ago, the National Football Leauge was an unfair mess. Years prior (1993), the league abolished replay review because they felt it slowed the game down too much. It was a mistake. They didn’t figure officials would miss so many calls but because the field was so big and there were so many small details that were tough to see in real time, the NFL eventually changed it’s policy. Video replays and coaching “challenges” were instated and consequently, officiating in NFL games improved significantly. Aside from a few situations, like the NFL not allowing challenges on penalties or on plays that are prematurely whistled dead, I wouldn’t change the way NFL games are officiated at all. That’s why I think the NFL is the fairest league and has the best officiating system of all major sports.

How is that relevant in what happened in the Boston and Carolina hockey game? The NFL adopted this style of interpreting plays where unless there is conclusive evidence to overturn a referee call that occurred at the moment the play occurred, the result of the play remains as initially called. That makes a lot of sense in football because in many situations, a referees line of site is a lot better than any camera view. In a situation where a referee made a wrong call, the multitude of different camera angles serve as evidence to the contrary and the result of the play is overturned.

I’ve noticed that in the years after the NFL adopted this policy where conclusive video evidence is required to overturn calls, the NHL, as well as the NBA, started to use that same logic. The problem is that type of interpretation simply doesn’t work in the NHL. The speed of the game is too fast and the puck is too small. It’s ridiculous for the NHL to copy the NFL’s policy in this instance especially since the NHL doesn’t seem to have the camera angles required to disprove incorrect calls.

In this particular case late in the second period of the Boston and Carolina game, the overhead camera, which strangely is not in position where the cross-bar overlaps the goal line, makes it impossible to prove, based upon conclusive video evidence, that the puck crossed the line. However from that camera angle, any objective person can see that even though the puck isn’t visibly across the goal line, it is indeed across the line. The NHL rule is that unless the puck is clearly across the goal line, as in unless there is white ice in between the red line and the puck, a goal should not be awarded. If the camera was directly over head where the cross bar and the goal line overlapped, there’s no doubt in my mind that the puck would be clearly over the line.

It’s a judgment call and when it comes to determining whether or not a goal should be awarded, I’m in favor of reducing any ambiguities involved in making that decision. More than that though, I’m principally in favor of getting the call right as I think everyone is. At a certain point, the decision makers should be given the freedom to decide for themselves and not have to adhere to the conclusive evidence rule which essentially handcuffs their honest interpretation.

The NHL needs to change this rule. I’m tired of all the formalities. There shouldn’t need to be conclusive evidence. Just get the call right, is all I’m asking. There seems to be too many situations in hockey where every player, broadcaster, viewer, and official knows the correct call, but because there isn’t a camera angle that shows proof of what really happened, the missed call stands.

I especially can’t stand the fact that the NHL instated this ruling because the NFL has had success with it. Doesn’t the NHL have it’s own identity? And what about how the referees are made to announce the result, using similar diction, just like they do in the NFL. This is a copy-cat world though, I get it.

I know I’m not alone in my feeling that the conclusive evidence policy doesn’t work in hockey. So can we please get rid of it before something crazy happens and the outcome of a game or series is incorrectly determined because of this stupid rule.

I think pretty highly of Ryan Miller. Above all the pedestrian numbers and critics and other nonsense, is the fact that he’s a winning goaltender. He may let in the occasional weak goal, especially late in the game when his team is ahead by safe margin, but when the game is on the line, Ryan Miller always comes through. I’d rather have a goaltender like that, who statistically is not on par with the elite goaltenders of the league, than a goalie who shuts out poor teams and lets in four goals against elite teams. Ryan Miller gives you a chance in every game he plays while still having the ability to steal a game or two. He’s young and getting better.

He’s also a very focused athlete. The guy mediates before games and has a reputation as someone who takes practice very seriously. I can understand why teams would consider bumping Miller to try and take away from his focus.

In my eyes though, there’s a big difference between the contact that took place on the play in which Miller was injured and the strategical contact that teams use to try and distract Miller. I’ve watched the play about 20 times and personally, the following is how I feel.

I’m pretty certain that Gomez could have avoided contact. With that being said however, I don’t blame Millers injury on Gomez in the least bit. These guys are competitors and the game is played at such a high speed, it’s ridiculous to think that Gomez is going to jump out of Miller’s way especially since you consider that the puck was just out of his reach. He has a right to be going after that puck and if Miller didn’t come out of his net to swat it around the boards, Gomez would have been able to easily retrieve it.

Injuries happen all the time in hockey. They certainly occur less frequently with goaltenders. When they do happen to goalies, it’s almost always a freak accident like a puck striking a gap between pads or the stretching of a muscle. I definitely consider Miller’s injury a freak accident. Looking at the replay, it’s hard for me to understand just how he twisted his ankle. I know that the skates goalies wear are not very supportive of the ankles. For those that don’t know, the boots are very low cut which allow for greater lateral movement. But Miller didn’t even twist the ankle that Gomez bumped into.

As far as the response. It’s ridiculous to me that in a professional league, where there are two referees on the ice at all times, players are expected to police every nuance of the game themselves. It’s only because the referee’s miss so many calls that players are expected to respond. If players see something they are unhappy about, especially when it’s an injury, they’re expected to call upon the most primitive part of their minds and respond. Ryan’s hurt!? We must hurt them back! Ridiculous.

Now when it comes to bumping Miller as a strategy, a response is necessary. A situation like that is an example where players must respond. Someone needs to put someone else on their backside. Take a penalty, throw a punch, do whatever it takes to make the other team understand that bumping Miller intentionality is a great way to collect a few more bruises.

And just so I’m covering all the bases, Chris Neil’s hit on Drury was completely different. In my opinion that was a deliberate elbow. The referees did nothing about it so Lindy Ruff and the forth line responded. Chris Neal’s hit was a blow to the head of a player who didn’t have the puck.