That\'s just a silly argument. Comparing the butterfly to Avery\'s antics. I\'ll take my Clarke analogy over your butterfly. Unsportsmanship is in the INTENTION. Clarke\'s slash by itself is no different than any slash you see game in and game out. But like you said, his \"intention to put Kharly out of commission to gain an advantage\" leaves the tarnish. Just as Avery\'s INTENTIONS would leave the same tarnish. And to be honest, if a teammate, I\'ll take Clarke\'s asterisk over Avery\'s embarrassing display. At least Clarke\'s came from his all out desire and drive to win. (and Fergie told him to do it :P) Both would leave an asterisk to any championship won. To a man in that Ranger locker room, they will tell you they don\'t want to win using Avery\'s tactics. It\'s not really winning, not to the man, not to the player. Once tarnished, tarnished forever! Barry Bonds, anyone. That\'s my point.
The butterfly you can compare to the \'trap\'. Both technically are more efficient and perpetually unexciting. Who misses kicksaves?
The refs have the authority to interpret these rules in alignment to the best interest of the game. The rule makers know they can\'t think or every ridiculous action a player can take, so a certain amount of flexibility is written into the rules which give refs the ability to take action against these kinds of antics. To make a literal argument of the rules, as you have done, is in a word, shortsighted. Only a lawyer would rely their argument on such stupidity.
You give Avery too much credit for being smart or innovative. You think Avery is smarter than the other 600 guys in the league? He\'s just the goofiest. Let\'s take this new innovation and let all the teams do it. Your interpretation of the NHL would be a laughing stock and would lose it\'s fan base. I can here Cherry saying, leave that girlie stuff to the Europeans, this isn\'t Canadien hockey. Just because it\'s not \'specifically\' in the rules, doesn\'t mean all the players, including Avery, know it\'s not right. The reason you\'ve never seen this before, isn\'t because no one ever thought of it, it\'s because NO ONE WOULD EVER DO IT. There\'s nothing ingenious about it. It comes down to, who\'s the moron that would actually do this. If you want to compare, compare it to Garth Snow\'s shoulder pads, which pails in comparison to Avery. There was nothing in the rules, so why not add 10 inches to my shoulders. Why no rule, because no one thought anyone would actually do something so obviously ridiculous. Even Avery knew before he even did it, it would be the last time it would ever be allowed. Everyone knew. So if you know it\'s not right, why do it? Because it\'s not in the rules, well that\'s not how I\'d want to win. There\'s no rule for driving the Zamboni to the front of my goal. Let\'s do it until it says not to in the rules. There\'s some innovation:P
No, it\'s just bad for the NHL.
Go Orange-n-Black