The Boston Bruins' big Game 3 win over the Pittsburgh Penguins was not without a big loss. Gregory Campbell, one of the key members of a penalty kill that's been flawless in the Eastern Conference Final, broke his leg blocking a shot midway through the second. He's out indefinitely.

But before he left the game, Campbell spent nearly a full minute giving his team an emotional boost, fighting through the pain and remaining in the shooting lane as the Penguins pressed for the go-ahead goal. For some, this was evidence of the bravery and toughness of hockey players (not to mention the entire city of Boston, in the perhaps a tad over-the-top Bauer ad above). For others, it seemed strange to praise an athlete ignoring his body's dire need for medical attention. (That's been something of a problem in recent years.)

This is the moment that led to the #ImGregoryCampbell hashtag on Twitter, where hockey fans shared small moments of perseverance, many of which were badass on first glance, and kind of stupid on second thought. "I once broke my foot during 2nd grade recess but walked all the way back to class for story time," wrote Adam Summers. "I'm Gregory Campbell."

"I don't wash grapes before I eat them," tweeted James Walker. "I'm Gregory Campbell."

Eventually, even the Dallas Stars' official Twitter account got into it. And when they did, they won the whole freaking hashtag in a walk.

Had Sean Avery on our team. #ImGregoryCampbell

— Dallas Stars (@DallasStars) June 6, 2013

That's a bona fide zinger. There's something different about you these days, Dallas Stars. Beyond the logo.

UPDATE: Sean Avery caught wind of the zinger, and he's fired back appropriately.

@dallasstars did i ever say #ThankU for the 16 Million........hahahhahahaha

— Sean Avery (@imseanavery) June 7, 2013

Yow. Tie game.

Anyway. Check out a collection of runners-up to the #ImGregoryCampbell crown here, or after the jump:

Here are your Puck Headlines: a glorious collection of news and views collected from the greatest blogosphere in sports and the few, the proud, the mainstream hockey media.

• The Bruins are doing everything right. Their fans, on the other hand...

• Joel Quenneville would probably welcome a little more from Patrick Kane, sure. “It seems like the top guys, finding a way to score or be productive has been challenging. But I think if you’re contributing in other ways, the team game you can hang your hat on, it’s something you look for. That’s what we’re looking for and hopefully there’s some production along with it. [CSN Chicago]

• Duncan Keith's one-game suspension means intentional violence still gets a pass in the NHL. [Backhand Shelf]

• Did Keith get off easy? [Jewels From the Crown]

• Turns out Jeff Carter didn't actually lose any teeth after all. “Those were already gone,” he noted. “I had a tough practice in Chicago [when] my bridge fell out." On the slash, “I chipped one tooth, cracked a couple on the bottom, but didn’t actually lose any." [Frozen Royalty]

• "The simple fact is the Pens pissed away the early two games of this series with foolish mental mistakes, physical errors that ended up in their net and useless after-the-whistle scrums." [Pensburgh]

• Steve Ott expects more reckless stickwork with mandatory visors: “That’s where I think the biggest issue (is) falling in with the guys that don’t have one on,” Ott said. “ … When you don’t have a visor on, obviously you show a little bit more respect. You try not to bring your stick up or you wouldn’t have it up because it’s in the back of your mind.” [Buffalo Hockey Beat]

• With the World Hockey Championships coming to Belarus next year, Belarusian police officers are being trained to apologize to foreign hockey fans. [Ria Novosti]

The Chicago Blackhawks lost Game 3 of their Western Conference Final series with the Los Angeles Kings, and on the eve of Game 4, they've suffered another big loss: they'll be without the services of star defenceman Duncan Keith. The Blackhawks' blueliner has been suspended one game for his slash to the face of Jeff Carter.

Here's Brendan Shanahan with a straightforward explanation of where Keith went wrong. (Spoiler: it has something to do with slashing an opponent in the face.)

"This is more serious than a case of a player simply having to be responsible for his stick," Shanahan explains. "It is not an accidental high stick, nor is it a defensive high stick to an opponent. This is a retaliatory high stick to an opponent that causes an injury."

"Although Keith asserts that he did not intend to hit Carter in the face or hit him with such force, he does admit to intentionally swinging his stick at Carter as Carter is skating away from him."

That pretty much sums it up right there. High-sticking a guy in retaliation is a no-no, and when the victim of the high-stick goes in for 20 facial stitches and loses teeth as a result, you're probably going to be sitting out a night, even if that's not the damage you intended to inflict.

For those of you arguing that Keith's slash and Carter's slash were comparable, Shanahan is (rightly) not buying it. Heck, as he takes a moment to point out, he's not even convinced that Carter hit anything beyond the glove Keith was reaching down to retrieve. Beyond that, so what if he did?

"It should also be noted that even if Carter did indeed chop down on Keith's hand, that still does not justify the extent of Keith's actions," he says.

That pretty much covers it. Keith may not have meant to do exactly what he wound up doing, but a good way to avoid slashing a guy in the face and looking like the badguy for it is by keeping the reckless, retaliatory, waist-level, one-handed slashes to a minimum.

Frankly, Keith's lucky this is only one game. The way Shanahan was describing it, I was bracing myself for a longer suspension, and when you take Keith's repeat offender status and the status of Carter's face into consideration, the argument could have been made.

Either way, this is a big win for the Kings, who have to be feeling even better about their chances to tie this series up on Thursday.

If the Pittsburgh Penguins are relying on their goaltending, the Pittsburgh Penguins are losing.

It's as simple as that. So don't expect Tomas Vokoun, the netminder to whom Dan Bylsma will be returning for Wednesday's all-important Game 3, to win this one single-handedly. That's not how this team works. That's not how they're built.

Granted, Vokoun is the right choice for Game 3. Marc-Andre Fleury's biggest accomplishment in his Game 2 cameo appearance was stepping into a contest that was already close to gone, his team was trailing 3-0, and still managing to surrender two demoralizing goals. That's tough to do. So you go with Vokoun, because he appears less likely to cost you the game.

But he's not going to win it for you.

He shouldn't have to, anyway. This is a team with Sidney Crosby, Evgeni Malkin, Jarome Iginla, Kris Letang, James Neal, and Chris Kunitz. Through two games, this pantheon of Penguins has a combined zero points. The Penguins have been outscored 9-1, and with their firepower, they should be far more alarmed by the number after the hyphen than before it.

The nine is alarming too, of course.

It honestly won't matter which of the Pittsburgh Penguins' goaltenders is in net for Game 3 if the skaters in front of him play the way they did in the first two games.

"We didn't play well in front of our goalies. Our goalies are not to blame," Kris Letang said, correctly.

You could build a brick wall with a slot only slightly larger than the puck and call that the Pittsburgh goalie, but if you give Boston the amount of time and space they've had through two dates at CONSOL Energy Center, they might still win in a blowout.

That said, you're not allowed to start a wall, so Dan Bylsma had to select the goaltender he thought was most likely to resemble one for Game 3. He went with Tomas Vokoun.

"[We're] looking for a solid game from our goaltender," Bylsma explained. "We've gotten that from Tomas in virtually every game he's played, a real solid performance, and he's done that for us, and that's what we need tonight.  We don't need perfection.  We're looking for a solid game in between the pipes and from our goaltender to allow our team to win the hockey game."

Neither goalie gave Pittsburgh that in Game 2.

Vokoun lasted just sixteen and a half minutes, allowing three goals and one Marc-Andre Fleury to get past him. It was enough to make one wonder if Fleury could steal his job back after nearly a month as the backup. Most thought that all it would take was a strong showing in relief.

But before most could finish that thought, Brad Marchand had scored Boston's fourth goal of the game.

That goal was a back-breaker for Pittsburgh. With their firepower, a three-goal deficit is never the end of a game, especially with two periods remaining. And when Brandon Sutter trimmed it to 3-1, it looked like we might still have a game. Then Fleury allowed Marchand to negate that goal within seconds, and the Penguins went into the dressing room completely deflated.

Even then, Fleury might still have been able to steal the job. After a scoreless second period, there was still a glimmer of hope that they might be able to pull this one out with a strong third. But when Fleury was beaten by Patrice Bergeron less than 30 seconds into that third, the game went from all but over to over.

If those two momentum-decimating moments weren't enough to convince Bylsma that Vokoun bouncing back from an off-night was a safer bet than Fleury sparking a comeback in this series, the numbers are.

Vokoun has played 530 minutes of playoff hockey. He's allowed 20 goals. Fleury has played a little more than half that, at 290 minutes. He's allowed 17 goals. Vokoun's playoff save percentage is .929, which is respectable. Fleury's, at .883, is much less so.

So Vokoun gets the start, and we're left to wonder if we've seen the last of Marc-Andre Fleury in the postseason. Penguins fans have to hope that they have. It's Vokoun's job now, and if we're still wondering if he should gave it after Game 3, the Penguins are in an 0-3 hole.

Kids' CBC is a block of shows that airs every weekday morning in Canada on the CBC. Since it features no commercials because we hate the idea of advertisers influencing our kids when we leave them in front of the TV for hours every morning, the airtime between programs is filled by the hosts of the block, Patty Sullivan and Sid Bobb.

For years, Patty and Sidd were occasionally visited by pals like Mamma Yamma (a yam), Saumon de Champlain (a french salmon), and Captain Claw, (a lobster). But this year, the block was revamped and these pals were, sadly, retired.

Still, other special guests do happen along occasionally. Recently, for instance, Patty and Sidd spent the day playing with their new friend Stanley (a cup):

Your (or at least my) Canadian tax dollars at work.

Now, before you start snarking on this segment, you should know that A) it's for preschoolers, because as Canadians, we believe it's important that our children can recognize the Stanley Cup before they can form complete sentences, and B) Patty is a national treasure, and the star of my heart, so don't you dare.

Still, a few minor gripes: first, if the Stanley Cup needed 3-D glasses, I'm not sure that's where they would go. That means the bowl is basically its hair. I don't buy that. Seems to me the glasses could be higher.

Second, don't let the year-old song references (Carly Rae Jepsen, Psy) fool you: this is from last month.

And third, everybody knows the keeper of the Cup isn't letting the trophy ride a scooter unsupervised.

The 2013-14 season will be the first full year of the Tom Gaglardi era in Dallas, and with new ownership often comes new threads. On Tuesday, the Dallas Stars became the second NHL team of the day to unveil a new jersey design. Here's what they'll be wearing next season:

As expected, the logo that leaked two weeks ago is indeed the new Dallas Stars logo. I like it no more now than I did then. It looks like something that's been made in photoshop by liberally applying the bevel, emboss and stroke layer functions.

But Tom Gaglardi thinks the Big D is a grower. From the Stars:

“I hope that they look at it and say it’s the Dallas Stars. This is who we are. It’s a D and a Star. We’re the Dallas Stars, in Big D,” said Walsh. “We looked at a variation of things that just seemed too cute. We just wanted it to be simple and classic with a modern look to it. I think that is exactly what we ended up with.”

“It’s a clear winner, but it’s one of those logos that you have to look at a couple days to really get it but once you got it, then you really got it,” said Gaglardi. “It won’t surprise me to see people want to take some time to take a look at it. Maybe the first reaction is, ‘That’s interesting.’ The reaction a whole bunch of people had during the process was that after a few days, it really becomes something you love.”

That said, lose the ribbed D smack dab in the centre of this thing, and we're in business.

The Stars kept green as the primary colour, but they changed the shade to more of an emerald, and in this guy's opinion, they changed it for the better. (Full disclosure: green is my favourite colour and I can be sold on just about anything if it comes in green, so I may be speaking from a very serious bias here, but I like this jersey.) If you think it's a bit too bright, keep in mind that this green will pop on high-definition TVs in a way the old green did not. You might develop a better appreciation for it then.

One colour that's gone completely from the new look: gold. According to Gaglardi, this was due to two things. One, gold is a difficult colour to work with. Two, if you look into the night sky, the stars aren't really all that gold anyway.

“The other thing that bothered me is that if you look in the sky and look at a star, it’s more silver than gold,” said Gaglardi.

Sure, fine, whatever.

But golly, that logo. Maybe it will grow on me with time, or maybe I'll like it more when it's revealed that the players can actually grab it and throw it at their opponents. As for right now, however, it takes up far too much of what's otherwise a nice sweater. It should be so small you can't even see it, and maybe a different logo could be in its place.

All that said, it's still better than the Mooterus. What do you think?

Pass or Fail: The new uniforms for the Dallas Stars.

The NHL Competition Committee met Tuesday, and agreed that the league needs to be needs more transparent. Since visors are transparent, the next logical step was clear: more visors.

Beginning in 2013-14, the National Hockey League intends to grandfather in mandatory visor usage among its players.

Just as the league did when they made the transition to mandatory helmets, the veterans will still have a choice over whether or not to sport the added protection. Players who have played more than 25 career NHL games -- i.e. non rookies -- will be able to go visorless until they retire (or they're hit in the eye with a puck. Whichever comes first). But the newest members of the NHLPA don't have a choice. Visor up, son.

Now, it's not official just yet. All of the changes proposed by the Committee have to be approved by the NHL's Board of Governors and the NHLPA Executive Committee. But at this point, that appears to be just a formality.

The NHLPA's preference to keep visor use an individual choice has been the obstacle for mandatory visors for awhile now. In 2009, only 30% of NHLers supported grandfathering them in. But there's been a paradigm shift since -- perhaps due to the recent injuries suffered by Manny Malhotra, Marc Staal, and the one narrowly avoided by a visor-sporting Nate Thompson. In 2013, only 30% of NHLers played without a visor, and the Competition Committee vote indicates that the players are much more comfortable with making the gradual shift.

But mandatory visors aren't the only thing we can expect to see in the NHL next year.