The best worst-sports week of my life

Luke was born Monday October 15th 2012.  Nothing else mattered for that week in the hospital other than tending to his and Heather's needs, and somehow trying to fit in some eating and sleeping somewhere.  There are a few things that really stand out about that week that I'll never forget: the struggles and stress of getting Luke to eat, the excitement of leaving the hospital to return home, the joy of Luke eating from the breast for the first time the night we got home, and ...  just how bad of a sports week it was for me, personally.

Being a sports nut, it was impossible for me to ignore what was happening in the sporting world.  Other than hockey, there was a lot going on.   I wish I could have tied Luke's birth to a run of great results from fantasy football, NFL, EPL, and Canadian men's soccer, but instead it's quite the opposite:

-Fantasy Football, Oct 15 - I have Philip Rivers in the Monday night matchup against Denver, playing against a guy with Deymarius Thomas, a Bronco receiver.  I'm down 15.54 points to start the game.  Rivers throws for 119 yards, two TDs and a pick in the first half, while Thomas has 8 yards on one catch.  The gap closes to 5.58 points and I figure I've got a shot when I check the halftime score.
Result: Only after the game finished did I find out that Rivers throws 3 interceptions and fumbles twice in the second half, while Thomas catches a 29 yard TD.  SD scores no more points after leading 24-0 at halftime and Denver wins 35-24.  Rivers finishes with 5.64 points and I lose the week.  I hate Philip Rivers.

-Canada Men's World Cup Soccer Qualifier, Oct 18 - Canada played it's last game in the group phase away to Honduras, needing a draw or a win to progress to the Hex, which they hadn't done in a long time.  Had Canada won against Honduras at home, everything else being the same, Canada would already have been through.  To get a result out of this game needed a prayer to begin with, but there was more attention and hope in the media and fans for this qualifying run than ever before, so I was somewhat hopeful.
Result: I thought there must have been a mistake when I saw the final score: Honduras 8 : 1 Canada.  It was an utter embarrassment.  Canada out of another World Cup.

-English Premier League Soccer, Oct 20 - Luke and I watch the big matchup of Chelsea at Tottenham (OK, Luke slept, but he was there beside me).  Tottenham down in the table at this point, Chelsea at or near the top, great chance for Spurs to gain some ground.  Tottenham go down 1-0 in the first half, but come back to score two in the second to go up 2-1.
Result: Chelsea score 3 in the last 30 minutes to win 4-2.

-CFL, Oct 20 - I have the Rider game on PVR.  Big game at home against the Alouettes.  The wind plays a big part in the game and the Riders don't do anything in the 3rd quarter against it, while Montreal scores two TDs on two runs from Calvillo.  Yes, runs, that was not a typo.  But we have the wind in the fourth and we come back down 6 points late.
Result: The PVR recording stops and I don't tape the program following it, so I miss the finale, which involved two promising but fruitless drives.  Riders lose 34-28.

-Fantasy Football, Oct 16-22 - I have 3 of my best players on byes.  I'm projected to lose big to Porterhouse.
Result: I do lose big to Porterhouse.  Not a shock, but a kick to the groin.  I've now dropped 3 straight after opening the season up with a 4-0 run.

-NFL, Oct 21 - The Colts have a home game against the Browns.  This can't continue, right?
Result: Finally the streak is broken and the Colts win 17-13.

Had the Colts not won, this streak would have continued until Oct 28 due to:
-Oct 25: Spurs draw Maribor (Slovenia) in the Europa league 1-1.
-Oct 23-29: I get pounded in Fantasy Football.
-Oct 27: Riders lose at home to Toronto (The haven't won a game in Luke's existence yet).
-Oct 28: Colts beat Titans (then won two more) and Spurs beat Southampton (then lost 3 straight in prem and got knocked out of League Cup to Norwich).

A social commentary for some reason

I'm my own moderator here, bam! I really shouldn't have read this article because now I've waded into this stupid debate.

In reference to this: http://www.sovereignman.com/expat/tip-of-the-spear/

Maybe Sovereign man should use his sovereignty to use a car/bus/train if he doesn't like the TSA's tactics. I mean, freedom is his ultimate cause, no?

I think this guy has such a narrow view of the world to make assumptions the gover-boogey man is out to get him. And though the TSA and other government agencies like them might act overly paranoid, so is the fear that your country is going to turn into 1984.

Look at it rationally. The US went through a major terrorist act (as have others) and their government has been blamed for it, to an extent. And now other threats of shoe bombers and crotch bombers et al have appeared. If we make a simple assumption that no government wants a major terrorist act on their watch, then of course they are going to inconvenience everyone for that sake.

Having worked in the airport security industry, I know something that most people don't. There is a huge side-effect of even demonstrating that security principles are in place even if they aren't accomplishing anything. Despite "the fact is that body scanners are as ineffective at threat detection as metal detectors" (is this just common knowledge or is he an expert?), even if x-ray machines (for baggage or for people) were just showing re-runs of Alf to the operators, they would still be a huge deterrent to anyone who is planning a terrorist act. If your goal was to blow up or hijack a plane, and you thought you would be caught going through security, then it obviously wouldn't be smart doing it; your goal wouldn't be accomplished and you would be putting your group at risk. So the TSA isn't actually worried about a 5 year old girl being a terrorist, but by demonstrating security principles that show that even she could/would be caught, then this adds a layer of deterrence to those would-be terrorists.

Has anyone in this debate considered how many people would still fly if they dropped airport security all together? Does that appeal to the crowd that is now so anti-TSA? Let's turn the security knob back down to 0, where maybe it was in the 40's or 50's (don't know, assuming it was close to 0). Paranoia would go sky high. If a muslim stepped on a plane everyone would clear ship. Airlines would go under.

Do we really think the government would have changed security principles from pre-911 if the past decade's terrorist threats didn't happen? At what point can Americans blame terrorists for acting to diminish their rights? The government trying to protect its citizens and businesses is the only one to blame here? Come on.

If someone wants to complain about the ratcheted up security principles that are in place, fine. That is their right. The government acknowledges that right. They still have the right to vote along a line that run counters to the TSAs current principles. And they still have the right to not fly. If Americans want less intrusiveness in their airport security, I can understand that. I just don't get the paranoia over the US turning into a police state where you can't take a dump without being asked for ID. The cause and effect relationship on this topic seems to have completely been thrown out the window.

Americans can look around them and find hundreds of examples where government regulation takes place and where it benefits them and adds to their freedom. Freedom to drive on roads and have working power for appliances that don't short circuit and freedom to know their houses aren't going to cave in on them and that their gas lines aren't going to explode and that they're not on the hook to put out a fire. I don't see how there's enough hours in the day to have to worry about all the things the government does if it wasn't there.

So if more government and more regulation and more security is a bad thing, at what point does less of these things become a bad thing? That's something that has never been made clear to me.

Pause, breathe, footy

A while ago, the inflated head of a certain Lillywhite buffoon claimed he was shooting for the top at Real Madrid. Mistake prone (yet often trumpeted) Wilson Palacios essentially stated he was using Spurs as a stepping stone for further ambitions. Not that that has anything to do with my beef with him; a lot of players do it. However, they are usually good players. But, hell, I'm all for it. Get rid of the idiot. Heather hasn't learned who he is based on his quality footballing, but instead from the constant screaming she hears from the living room: "Fucking Palacios!"

Well, if Palacios going to Madrid (or anywhere for that matter) isn't sweet enough, I'm going to perk right up for the return option. Lassana Diarra is now rumoured to being pursued to come the opposite direction because of a falling out at Real Madrid. And as someone who watched him work some defensive midfield magic in person, this suits me just fine. Granted it was through some beer goggles, he was clearly the player of the TFC - Real Madrid friendly last August in a match that featured C. Ronaldo, Kaka, Higuain, Raul, Xabi Alonso, and, yes, even Dwayne De Rosario.

From Daily Mail...

Real, though, want a find a replacement before allowing the £17million-rated France international to leave.

Let's get this done.

More head shots

According to tsn.ca's poll today, 70% of fans don't think that a minor/major penalty for a head shot will have any effect on deterring players from doing it. I was not one of them. And neither is Don Cherry.

So the question is, what do people think is needed here? Huge fines? Suspensions? lifetime hockey bans?

A major penalty is absolutely going to change behaviours. Because 5 minute majors are going to lead to goals, which are then going to lead to lost games, which are then going to lead to coaching decisions against the idiots who do these things. It would be nice to think that Matt Cooke gets disciplined internally by the Penguins from that hit, but that is dream world. Winning is the only thing that matters in hockey. If he gets penalized on that hit for 5 minutes and Boston scores two goals and wins by 1 instead of loses by 1, I'm going to guess there will be a strip torn off him by Dan Bylsma.

I think the poll was misinterpreted by most people who think only penalties aren't good enough for them for punishment. They want suspensions and fines. Adding those things in is fine. But that doesn't mean only penalties won't affect players' behaviour.

Suspensions are fines because they forfeit their salaries during the suspension and these would also help. I would give an automatic 1 game suspension, followed by 5 games for repeat offense, and then double the suspension going forward. Once the first guy gets 10 or 20 games for this, you bet your ass eyes will be opened.

Take out head shots

Up for discussion at the NHL General Managers meetings is head shots.

The current debate is whether to outlaw all shoulder hits to the head or just the ones that come from the blind side to a player in a vulnerable position. I have no issue whatsoever with taking out all shoulder hits to the head, which would mean even the ones where the hitter comes and hits straight on. Chris Neil did it to John Mitchell on Saturday when Mitchell reached for the puck as the hit came in. Chris Neil would get penalized in my system, but not for being dirty, just unlucky/clumsy. And next time maybe he reacts differently by slowing his check and just pushing Mitchell over instead of leaning into him. After all, what if Mitchell was Sidney Crosby and he got a concussion and it knocked him out for the season (or worse). Would my rule be worth it then? I think so. And not just because I have Crosby in my draft. Which, consequently, I've dealt with the serious impacts of concussions in because my late round pick, PM Bouchard, has played only one game this year because of a concussion. (Yes, this really is all about me and my ability to profit. I have Savard too, btw.)

All the stakeholders in the NHL say "we have to do something about it." But who among them is really pressing to do something about it? Who is clamoring for change? Who is demanding it? Boston's GM Peter Chiarelli seems pretty adamant something should be done. But that is only because his player, Marc Savard, was obliterated the night before by Matt Cooke.



Sports writers want something to be done. Fans like me want something to be done. But guess what? Brian Burke has a message for you:

"I don't mean to hurt your feelings, but when we talk about rule changes I could care less what the media has to say about it," said Toronto Maple Leafs GM Brian Burke. "To me, we've got to address what's right about our game and what's wrong about or game -- not what some sportswriter thinks is wrong with the game."

Sid Sixeiro is right. He said if the NHL is unwilling to do anything to protect their own players, because they are reluctant to take away the physical nature of the game, then why should I care about the well being of those players? Maybe they should just be looked at as gladiators, like you do with boxers and MMA fighters. But the difference here is that hockey players are supposed to score goals to win games, not beat the shit out of each other. But as Jason Spezza says on tsn.ca:

"The physical nature of our game is one of the best things we have and you don't want to take that physical nature of the game but you also don't want to see guys getting hurt."

They (the league and the players) are worried about "sissy-ing" the game because they think fans only love the game for the blood-thirsty nature of it. A lot of fans probably do. They have that gladiators mentality. At times I've probably had it. But at some point, a little maturity and common sense has to be injected when you start regularly seeing guys passed out on the ice and careers being cut short.

When Canada nearly completed that tic-tac-toe passing play that was only thwarted by Evgeni Nabokov against Russia in the Olympic quarter finals, I was on my feet. That's the hockey I want to see. I don't watch the game to see guys getting laid out. Hitting is part of the strategy and the excitement about the game, but it is not everything about the game.

Just like how everyone stands and ooh and ahhs at NHL fights and gathers around a computer or a TV to see the line brawl or Mike Milbury beating a guy with a shoe in the stands, they would do the same thing if it happened in a parliamentary session or at a Mcdonalds or at a day care. But just because people are fascinated or entertained by it doesn't make it right.

There's no question the most exciting hockey that can be seen is in the Olympics (or if you're Canadian, the world juniors to a large extent too). How much fighting is there in the Olympics? Zero. I realize this is a short tournament where national pride is on the line and not an 82 game season. And I realize in the Olympics that Ovechkin got away with a shoulder to the head on Jagr that left him concussed (interestingly, Jagr said he wanted one before realizing he actually was concussed so that he wouldn't have to remember it), but the play should have been penalized and Ovechkin comes from a league where that hit is legal and encouraged. If head shots get outlawed in the NHL right now and in 4 years time in Sochi for the next Olympics and that situation presents itself again to Ovechkin, does it happen exactly the same way? Maybe. That just might be who Ovechkin is and how he plays. But I don't think so. People aren't dumber than dogs. They can also learn by observing and experiencing punishment from bad behaviour.

Does it seem a little strange to anyone how Canada's identity to the world is a peacekeeping, humble, polite nation? How this happened with our national pastime being hockey is beyond me. We celebrate the fighting and violence and revere a man (to the point of nearly being named the greatest Canadian ever) who calls frenchmen and foreigners pussies and who constantly declares that we are the best.

The NHL, it's GMs, the NHLPA, Mike Richards, Matt Cooke, Patrice Cormier, and the like should all take note. If you have to make your sport appealing by encouraging violence or looking the other way at career / day to day life threatening injuries, then your sport no longer appeals to me the way it once did.

High Tech

I'm not going to lie, the top two uses I get out of my iPod Touch are listening to podcasts as I bus to work (Hardcore Footy Show of course) and allowing me to use google reader while I'm on the can. Now that, is high tech shitting.

Prem Predictions 09-10

I predicted Chelsea to win the title last year because of ManU's loss of C-ron at the start of the season due to injury. While they did drop points, they quickly recovered once he returned. This year, he doesn't return. Plus they lose their hardest working player in Tevez. Rooney (not to mention Owen) is a band-aid, so relying on him for the extra offense might not work out.

Meanwhile Chelsea is so deep in the midfield, once Joe Cole is back they are even going to have trouble finding minutes for everyone. They could hurt at center back if either one of Carvalho or Terry go down for a long period. But they have probably the most dangerous strike partnership to choose from up front with Drogba and Anelka (convince me otherwise, Man City).

Two Torres' is what I see Liverpool needing to win anything. I just don't see the depth that will get them through another long CL run while holding off teams in the Prem. Still a quality team with the most dynamic offense around (again, we'll see in time about Man City).

When it comes down to it, there just isn't much movement at the top anymore, and that's exactly where I see these three ending up.

1. Chelsea
2. Liverpool
3. Man U

However, I think there is definitely room for movement in the 4-8 slots.

Arsenal has been weakened, but has youth and talent behind them. Depth is getting to be an issue and will struggle to keep above the pack below them.

I just don't see Man City making the strides this year to break out. Only one significant signing (so far) has been made to bolster their defense, where I see their problems coming from. If they go through a goal drought, there is going to be drama and infighting. Robinho was no revelation for them last year.

Although Everton aren't starting very healthy, they have some depth and should only get stronger as the year goes on, getting Yakubu, Jagielka, Anichebe and Arteta back in time. If they can keep Lescott, they have the best shot at breaking the top 4 monopoly. Tim Howard was stellar all summer, best keeper in the Prem now if you ask me.

Spurs will likely start bad, on a account of center back injuries to start the year, or just because they always do. There is a lot of hype about Modric for this season, but did he really get that much better over the summer? Wouldn't bother me one bit if he backed it up, great player nonetheless. I'm more excited about what Aaron Lennon will do. Should be some great goals and questionable defense this year. The only question is whether not having the UEFA Cup to worry about gives them enough strength to challenge at the top.

4. Arsenal
5. Everton
6. Man City
7. Tottenham

I just don't see Villa hanging in there this year. Lost Barry and Laursen retired, Downing is a ways off from healthy. Not sure if I believe in their defense holding up to some potent offenses this year.

Fulham seem to be progressing again slowly. Have hung on to Hangeland so far and haven't really taken any steps back. Schwarzer and Dempsey have re-signed and will be key players for them this year. If they can find consistent scoring, they'll finish top half table.

Sunderland has been stocking up in the last little while. No huge moves by any stretch, but this is a competitive team which can take some steps forward this year. Bent is still a quality forward.

Bolton is another team that I think fits the same billing as Sunderland. I thought they were destined for the drop last year, but I'm glad I was wrong because this has always been one of my favorite teams to watch.

West Ham and Blackburn should have enough talent to slot into the bottom-middle of the table, that's all I got.

8. Aston Villa
9. Fulham
10. Sunderland
11. Bolton
12. West Ham
13. Blackburn

Two teams that I've read are questionable to stay up, but on paper look good enough to me are Hull and Birmingham. I have a soft spot for Hull, and if Bullard is healthy and with Altidore up front, they add significantly more talent. I like the Hunt signing too.

14. Hull
15. Birmingham

I see 12-20 being a dogfight this year. Anything can happen. Can Portsmouth get stability? Will Delap surprise/fluster defenses with his throws? Will Burnley win a game? Can Wigan cope with losing so much talent since the middle of last season?

16. Stoke
17. Wigan
18. Portsmouth
19. Wolves
20. Burnley

Don't Cair Canada

Here we go again. The last time this happened, you'd have thought I learned my lesson. Apparently not. If there was a way to put Air Canada on any more notice than they are already on, I would. My latest issue is the 4th one in my last 4 trips with this airline. That's right, they are managing a 100% customer unsatisfactory rating. Their planes had no air vents on our way back from Hawaii, we were delayed twice for hours en route to Italy, they bumped me on my flight last fall, and now this.

This story begins from the last one (link above) where Air Canada pissed me off and I subsequently got a $200 voucher from them to use within a year. Since I was going to watch the TFC v. Real Madrid game in Toronto, I figured this was a way to chink away at Air Canada's profits a little.

I went to the TO airport yesterday on my way home. Because I was traveling to the airport on public transit, I wanted to get on a later flight to avoid any possibility of missing my flight. However, there were no direct flights in the early afternoon. Now, being naive (read: stupid), I figured the 45 minute layover in Winnipeg was fine. I mean, it's not like I was traveling with Air Cana... D'oh!

All I wanted was to get back in time for my soccer game last night. I knew instantly that wasn't going to happen when the AC agent at the gate came on the mic and said "I know a lot of you are frustrated..." I guess a different flight to Winnipeg got canned and people we having problems getting home. But hey, what do I care? They screwed somebody else for a change. But the message went on: "the plane has be over-fueled and they need to figure out a way to get the fuel out, so there will be a delay."

This is where it gets really funny. What does AC do next? They remove all the checked luggage from the plane and send the plane out an hour late of course! Because goal number one is maximum inconvenience. Bad airlines make Alex something something, but fortunately I didn't have any checked luggage. So they missed me on that one. Nice try though guys!

But since we left an hour late, there was virtually no way I was going to make the flight to Saskatoon. Something I was already resigned to when we left Toronto. But it turns out we were going to get to the gate in Winnipeg at 5:10PM. Since my Saskatoon flight was scheduled to leave at 5:00PM and since nobody who was connecting (and there were more than just me) had any checked luggage, all we would have had to do is run onto the plane and it could leave. A total of 10 minutes of inconvenience to the Saskatoon flight.

Of course, that wouldn't happen. All I got was a friendly "here's your new boarding pass." They didn't even apologize for the inconvenience. They must get screamed at so often by passengers they piss off, they probably stopped caring long ago. And they didn't buy me a meal for wasting 4 hours of my time either.

It really amazes me that this airline can piss so many people off and still continue to operate. When do we all smarten up and say enough is enough? This time, I am. WAKE UP PEOPLE! JOIN THE REVOLUTION! I DON'T CARE IF YOU TAKE WESTJET, OR A ZEPHYR, OR EVEN WALK! GET OFF AIR CANADA FOR GOOD!

Ok, Shifting Gears

While I appreciate that someone is getting excited for the start of the Prem season after the incredibly short break they get for summer, this blog is starting to look like a Liverpool fan's club. It's time to turn the tide and talk about another title dreamer (snap!), Tottenham Hotspur.

While being linked with almost everyone (not too noteworthy) under the sun this summer, things have been relatively quiet. I'm very sad that the rumour of bringing in Canadian International Julian De Guzman didn't pan out. I really don't like Wilson Palacios and with Didier Zokora gone, Willy will likely see a bulk of the midfield holding role. Another disappointment was the bringing in of Peter Couch. Though I'm not particularly affable toward the guy, I must admit he does have soccer talent instead of basketball talent for unknown reasons. Lastly, I was kind of hoping Jenas would be on his way out. Alas, it has yet to happen.

The huge crisis which is bound to condemn the team to another slow start is going to be the injuries on defense. Hopefully Ledley King can play a part at the start of the year, despite not even kicking a ball in preseason training, but Dawson and Woodgate are out. I think had they all been healthy (of course King will never be healthy), they would have had a good shot at starting on the right foot this year. They don't have to worry about the Europa League, so they can focus on the league. But I can't see anything good coming from the losses on defense.

Goaltending is also a concern, because as much athletic talent as Gomes can display, he is prone to flapping around like he's a blindfolded fat kid looking for the pinata.

But the good comes from strong options going forward. In my opinion, Aaron Lennon is the top threat in the league on the wing. And I think he will really show that this year. His ability to get space and spring down the wing, taking men on and flying by, and getting balls into the box will bode well for the poachers inside it. I think Keane, Defoe, and Crouch are all best scrapping for goals in the box. None are much threat outside of it (like a Fernando Torres).

So there, I think I've stepped up and represented North London blue, white, and bright yellow. Come on you Spurs!

The Sleeper (part 3)

Now up in Campbell River with Kevin. Going to go tree obstacle coursing today.

July 23 - 10 hours - 1 nap
July 24 - 10.5 hours - 0 naps

The Sleeper (pt 2)

Heather's sleeping count continues. In Victoria now, going kayaking tomorrow morning. Seeing C-dog soon.

July 21 - 10 hours (1 nap)
July 22 - 9 hours (2 naps)

The Sleeper

Here, in a recurring series, I'm going to catalog Heather's sleeping schedule while on vacation. The total includes the previous night's sleep and the total naps of the days.

July 18 - 10 hours - 2 naps
July 19 - 10.5 hours - 3 naps
July 20 - 10 hours - 0 naps

She claims she needs 11 hours a day, so her average is already starting out low.

We're on vacation right now. We enjoyed Rec Beach in Vancouver today and will spend the night on the UBC campus before departing on the ferry tomorrow morning.

Unbeatable

From ESPN Soccernet...

Robinho believes Manchester City will be 'almost unbeatable' if the club manage to sign Samuel Eto'o from Barcelona this summer.

Yeah, and while Richard Dunne sits out his 8 suspensions next year, Tevez could slot in at center back. Unbeatable.

I don't know how you get even close to that conclusion by loading up on strikers. If Tevez and Eto'o sign, that will surely close out the forward ranks for the upcoming season, along with Robinho and Roque Santa Cruz. Get ready for some bitching about playing time coming from Man City this year.

Canada's Gold Cup Squadron

from canadasoccer.com...

CANADA
1- G- Greg Sutton | unattached / sans club
2- D- Adrian Cann | DEN / Esbjerg fB
3- D/M- Mike Klukowski | BEL / Club Brugge KV
4- D- André Hainault | USA / Houston Dynamo
6- M- Julian de Guzman | ESP / Deportivo La Coruna
5- D/F- Kevin McKenna | GER / 1. FC Köln
7- D/M- Paul Stalteri | GER / Borussia Mönchengladbach
8- M- Marcel de Jong | NED / Roda JC
9- F- Ali Gerba | CAN / Toronto FC
10- M/F- Willi Johnson | USA / Real Salt Lake
11- D- Richard Hastings | SCO / Inverness CT
12- M- Issey Nakajima-Farran | DEN / FC Nordsjælland
13- M- Atiba Hutchinson | DEN / F.C. København
14- D- Dejan Jakovic | USA / DC United
15- M/F- Josh Simpson | GER / FC Kaiserslautern
16- F- Simeon Jackson | ENG / Gillingham FC
17- D/M- Jaime Peters | ENG / Ipswich Town FC
18- G- Joshua Wagenaar | ENG / Yeovil Town
19- D/M- Kevin Harmse | CAN / Toronto FC
20- M- Patrice Bernier | DEN / FC Nordsjælland
21- M- Chris Pozniak | SCO / Dundee FC
22- G- Kenny Stamatopoulos | NOR / FC Lyn Oslo (on loan from Tromsø I.L.)
23- F- Charles Gbeke | CAN / Vancouver Whitecaps FC

Notable absences are Dwayne De Rosario and Adrian Serioux. Dero isn't much of a surprise because he already said he wasn't likely to play. The stupid MLS doesn't respect international tournaments / World Cup Qualifying, so this makes it even tougher for players to choose country over club or vice versa. I think Serioux is battling injuries, so that likely played a part.

I want to see André Hainault replace Serioux in central defense and anyone (McKenna preferably) replace Richard Hastings. I know Stalteri is likely to captain the team, but it really is time for him to quit. I'm stoked to see Simeon Jackson play for the first time, after he scored a Wembley goal to secure promotion for Gillingham to League One and he scored on his debut for Canada to secure the 1-0 victory agains Cyprus last month.

I'm not sure why Newcastle defender David Edgar or Portsmouth keeper Asmir Begovic aren't included either. These are good young players and we really need to bring them into the fold, they could be crucial for our qualification for WC 2014.

Size matters

Since this topic always comes up, usually during Euro's and World Cup's, I thought I would put the issue to bed. The soccer fields we play on here in Saskatoon are just as big, and in some cases BIGGER than the fields professionals play on. Using my Google Map measuring skills, here are the comparisons:

Saskatoon Umea - 81 yds vs. 121 yds (bigger than the 80 v 120 yds max requirement for International games)
Saskatoon Newsham - 72 yds vs. 106 yds
Saskatoon Sasktel Center Fields - 75 yds vs. 110 yds

Stamford Bridge (Chelsea) - 73 yds vs. 110 yds
Upton Park (West Ham) - 73 yds vs. 110 yds
City of Manchester Stadium (Manchester City) - 74 yds vs. 114 yds
Anfield (Liverpool) - 74 yds vs. 110 yds
Nou Camp (Barcelona) - 75 yds vs. 115 yds

The Slide Tackle

I've been reduced to limping on both sides, which might tie the world record for most limping legs. This was the result of a soccer slide tackle on skin searing artificial grass. I thought it would be fun to chronicle (what I hope to be) my last raspberry.

I've done quite well with my slide tackles so far this year, probably pushing a dozen with 0 fouls and more often than not coming away with possession of the ball. This was another one of those occasions. After getting up with ball on foot, I made a pass which, shortly thereafter, was put out for a throw in which I went to take. Sensing that something might be wrong, I was queried if I wanted a sub from the bench. After hesitating, the pain started to increase and I realized it would be a good idea.

This one slide tackle reduced me to whimpering all night. Due to my foot making heavy contact with the opposing player's leg, I could barely walk on it. It got worse as the night wore on, to the point where when I went to bed, I could only lie there and moan for a few minutes. This wasn't the worst consequence of this slide, however.

Now, since I slide tackle a lot, I'm used to getting floor/grass/fake grass burns (aka raspberry) on the side of my sliding left leg. The last 3 games have all resulted in one. Yes they burn in the shower the next day, but that is usually the end of it. By the time the next game rolls around, everything is completely healed.

The one I got on Tuesday has been amongst the worst ever. Heather was even concerned, so she played nurse and cleaned the wound. She found little rubber pellets from the artificial grass embedded under my skin. Needless to say, the wet cloth against the open wound did not feel nice.



The past 2 nights, I have had to avoid anything making contact with it, including covers, wives, clothing, anything. It burns bad. So I've been sleeping with my ass exposed out the side mostly. Yesterday morning, Heather put gauze on it along with some polysporin. In a few short hours, that gauze was soaked in pus and it was stuck to the wound. This happened a few times throughout the day.

The morning-after shower, as always, was not fun. However, I don't recall ever seeing this afterward; there was pus literally dripping down my leg. After re-gauzing and disinfecting. I dressed and went to work. It took virtually no time for pus to soak through the gauze and through my underwear. My shorts were even wet from the pus. I didn't prepare for this and I had to go to Pharmasave to get supplies to re-cover the wound.



So why does this make me have to limp on my left side? Well every time I take a step, thus bending my knee, my underwear rubs against the open wound (I got sick of gauze). It is still soaking my underwear with pus and it still burns heavily.

So the conclusion? Compression shorts under my soccer shorts. Something I told myself a decade ago would be a good idea. The result of complete and utter lethargy. Somebody slap me.

Kronwall Kronwall's Havlat

update: Sportsnet's Mike Brophy's take

First of all, it always amazes me how stupid hockey players can be. You have a guy who, who knows, could be in a coma on the ice and they are stepping all over him. It was the game before this where one of Chicago's players' heads nearly got taken off with a skate blade to the neck. Now Havlat is laying there, unconscious, and they could have decapitated him by stepping in the wrong spot.

As I was saying the other day, hockey is like no other sport in the world, except organized fighting and lacrosse, where violence outside the confines of the game is not only accepted, it is a marketing tool for the league. If you saw two basketball players, two football players, two baseball players, or two soccer players fighting, they would get tossed from the game. Those sports live (for the most part) without fighting. For some reason, in hockey, passion and violence go hand in hand; you can't have one without the other. Football is a contact sport. A hard hit is accepted as such. How many times have you seen a guy get blocked from the blind side and just get demolished? There is never a brawl afterward. It's part of the game.

I say F*** the hockey purists who say fighting is necessary. I've watched the Olympics, the World Championships, the World Juniors, there is no more chippiness or dirty hits than there is in the NHL. And the game is just as entertaining without fighting. I think hockey's excuse to let the players police themselves is one of the worst arguments in sports. Back in the old days when that statement was even truer you had line brawls and Mike Milbury in the stands whacking guys with shoes (seriously, look it up). These are the types of athletes you want policing themselves? They can't police themselves.

And to address Kronwall's hit, it was dirty and he should be suspended. He left his feet, I don't care if it was before or after the hit, and any time the league can review hits and see clearly an intention to hurt another player with a devastating hit to the head when he's not looking, then a lesson needs to be sent to the players doing these things. Unfortunately, there is no suspension and Havlat is now questionable for game 4.

Debunking Soccer Rules

I've been reading FIFA's "Law's of the game" online and found some glaring issues with how their rulebook is applied in the real game and some misleading/contradictory statements.

Interesting reminders:
-A goal can be scored from the kick-off.
-A penalty is decided based on where the foul occurred; the ball position does not matter.
-A free kick inside a team's own penalty area requires all opponents to be outside the 18 yard box. Ball isn't in play until it leave penalty area.
-On a penalty shot, all players except the goalie must be behind the ball, specifically at the sides of the penalty area, 12 yards from the goal line.

LAW 7 – THE DURATION OF THE MATCH - Allowance for Time Lost
Apparently "any other cause" is a valid reason for the referee to allot added time. Additionally, "The allowance for time lost is at the discretion of the referee." So the referee can make up any reason for added time or decide not to allow any extra time if he/she so desires? Isn't the wording here just opening the door for potential referee bias?

Furthermore, in the referee interpretation guidelines, it says "the referee must allow for the full amount of time lost through injury to be played at the end of each period of play." WTF is going on?

LAW 9 – THE BALL IN AND OUT OF PLAY & LAW 10 – THE METHOD OF SCORING
This is something that should be über clear to every soccer player, but it still a source of confusion for me, especially with the way this law is enforced. When you watch soccer on TV, you will consistently see balls which cross over the line being called out when there is grass visible between the white line marking the field and where the ball contacts the grass.

However, according to FIFA's rule, the WHOLE of the ball has to cross the line. This is like the whole puck crossing the line in hockey. You have to look from over top or straight down the line to see if an object has fully crossed the line. Since the ball extends outwards from where it contacts the ground, only looking at the ball's contact with the ground to see if it is over the line is insufficient.

LAW 12 – FOULS AND MISCONDUCT - Cautionable Offences
This is a big screw up if you ask me. Nowhere in this list of offenses does it say that a dangerous foul can be punished with a caution, aka yellow card. The only thing that comes close is "persistent infringement of the Laws of the Game." This means a player must commit several fouls before he can be cautioned if you believe in the word "persistent." And I do believe. It's a real word. I looked it up.

It would seem to me that the words "careless, reckless or using excessive force" should be removed from describing offenses leading to a free kick and applied to the justification for giving a caution. Because that is really how it works in the real game.

A funeral for Duke ... ?

Notice what I did with the question mark there?

But for the moment, yes, it's true. Duke Nukem is dead. 3DRealms, the company which develops Duke games, most notably the oft delayed Duke Nukem Forever, has gone bankrupt and closed its doors. And the game which may never be, starting from development in 1997, has potentially sunk with it.

Purely in the context of my video game fandom, this is a great tragedy for me. I don't get into games very much anymore and, in fact, the last game I have actually completed front to back was Duke Nukem 3d for PC with the new graphics pack. I was psyched ever since news last year started to come out that DNF was in active development and could be released sometime this year. There were even teaser trailers, screenshots, exclusive interviews, the works. Word on the street though is that part of 3DRealms' problem is that they wanted the game to hit the street with an explosive bang, surprising people instead of giving away too much of the premise of the game. And I must say, even though this may have hurt them from lack of publicity, it would have been a refreshing thing to have accomplished. I wasn't a fan of GTAIV's constant advertising, which didn't do much to hype the game for me and got rather annoying by the end. Of course, it didn't help that the game didn't live up to its potential.

But back to the question mark. 3DRealms going down will not kill DNF. Mark my words. This is just more publicity for the fire. Duke Nukem is back in the news and people are talking about it. Maybe not in a good way, but many people are going to express disappointment that the game will never be. And someone will jump on that opportunity and finish it, something 3DRealms couldn't do for over a decade.

Here are the latest and maybe last "promos" for the game.

Daniel Tschetter, Be a Man

Sometimes its worthwhile discussing something on the best nothing. In this case, something disgusting, disheartening, and repulsive.

The back story from cbc.ca...

A concrete truck driver charged with killing five people in a Calgary rear-end collision testified that he's a longtime recovering alcoholic who's had a "couple of slips here and there."

Daniel Tschetter, 51, has pleaded not guilty to five counts of manslaughter, five counts of criminal negligence causing death and one count of obstruction in the deadly crash in December 2007.

It's a horrific story, a whole family wiped out in an instant. This is not a simple story of an accident gone bad. What makes this so disgusting is this guy has come up with every excuse in the book to account for his actions.

In short, his defense is that because his wallet may have been lost or stolen, because he was a recovering alcoholic, because he was in a rush, and because he had to worry about gages in his truck, he should be excused from any responsibility for driving a heavy vehicle erratically, speeding, not yielding to warning lights of an upcoming red light, running a red light, and killing a family of five.

Oh, and let's not forget he had a slew of past traffic violations and had been fired from a previous job for these digressions.

And the cherry on top, unbelievable:

He recalled wanting a drink of water, so he reached under his seat and took a drink from a bottle, before realizing it was vodka, Tschetter said.

...

Tschetter said he returned to his truck, climbed to the top and threw the bottle of vodka into the drum, because he didn't know what to do if people saw him with the container.

"What do I say, what do I do?" he testified.

Under questioning by his lawyer, Balfour Der, Tschetter explained the vodka bottle was in the truck so he could offer drinks to staff at concrete suppliers to get to the front of long lineups.

Excuses. You don't kill five people and go "oops, my bad." You take fucking responsibility. You don't make shit up about accidentally drinking vodka. You would have to think everyone is out of their fucking minds to believe that. Batshit crazy. Who is going to know what a bottle of vodka is or isn't. That's right, an alcoholic. He would have had to crack the seal on it (assuming it wasn't already open, which he would have to claim it wasn't). I feel insulted by this comedic testimony.

And the lack of responsibility after trying to hide the evidence doesn't stop there. He refused to submit to a breathalyzer. Was he worried about blowing .08 after a sip of vodka? It might not be fair, but I'm not on the jury, I'm going to read between the lines.

It makes me sick to my stomach I read about new developments in this story. And it makes me even sicker to hear that this jackoff Daniel Tschetter is trying to worm his way out of it.