Sat Oct 18, 2008 12:41 pm EDT
One of the true joys of this gig is interaction; the constant exchange of ideas between hockey fans.
For us, this interaction primarily occurs in one of two ways. The first is through the comments section (when systemic posting problems or HTML errors don't ruin your messages). Which is why beginning next month, we're going to have Puck Daddy comment awards on the first and fifteenth of every month; honoring everything from the best hockey insight to the most offensive joke to the cleverest takedown of the ridiculous headshot on this blog. Good times.
The other interaction is via e-mail, where each day we receive everything from petty complaints about the NHL to well-thought-out diatribes about the Game. Keep them coming at puckdaddyblog@yahoo.com.
Two e-mails this week focused on the presentation of the NHL on television, and both offered rather interesting takes: One from a guy watching a Los Angeles Kings/Anaheim Ducks game, about what makes TV coverage of hockey "unwatchable"; and the other wondering when the hockey helmet will actually become part of the overall uniform aesthetic, for the sake of HDTV.
First up is Bob Kennedy, who wonders if the NHL on television will ever improve:
"I have a serious concern regarding television broadcasts of hockey games, and I don't know who to turn to with it. First, let me make clear I know how to watch the game and love it more than any other sport, by leaps and bounds. I would gladly watch any two teams play, at any level of competition.
"But I have really grown to dislike watching hockey on TV, for the sole reason of the camera direction. Every game I watch, the director cuts from the traditional high center view to rink level cameras while the action is live. Sometimes the camera zooms in on the goaltender's face, perhaps five seconds after a scoring chance, while the defense is moving the puck to the neutral zone out of view. Sometimes the camera follows a puck-handling defenseman in his own zone. Sometimes the camera watches a power play from behind the net. These angles are great for replay shots, but I think they're horrible when the shot is live.
"Tonight I had one of the worst experiences: Fox Sports Prime Ticket in California is televising a Los Angeles Kings-Anaheim Ducks matchup in which the primary camera is rink level. I turned it off because it was making me motion sick.
"I think it's no wonder that casual fans can't watch the game - it's unwatchable with this kind of direction. I suspect that if it's this hard for somebody who knows and plays the game to follow what's happening, then it must be impossible for an introductee. Who knows how many sports fans have been turned off by the same problem, but it doesn't need to be this hard to watch?
"All I want is one camera, up high, at the red line. No changes when the clock is running. I have emailed networks before (Versus and NBC) but with no response. Let me add that I am not the kind of cynic who objects to the fact that the NHL's national TV contract is with Versus rather than ESPN. As far as I can tell, all hockey broadcasters (Canadian networks included) have this love of alternative camera angles. I wonder if they ever actually tested it with audiences.
"I don't know what to do about this - it seems like hockey fans are upset about so many aspects of the league that this particular issue does not bubble to the top very often, if at all. I would have considered a boycott even, but ironically, my cable provider recently dropped Versus.
-- Bob Kennedy"
Mark Pargas of the New York Times Slap Shot blog also offered a take on the FSW camera angles, and his verdict was, "It was different, but I'll mark it down as an early effort and note that there is room to improve."
Thanks for the note, Bob. Keep an open mind when it comes to TV producers trying out new things. As long as nothing is glowing, we could be OK.

Up next is Puck Daddy reader James W. Burrows with a rather interesting argument about how to improve the aesthetics of hockey on HDTV. He says it starts at the top ... with the helmet:
"Hockey COULD BE great in HD, but the look of the game needs work. White ice, white boards and invariably one team in white helmets. My question is: When can we make the helmet a part of the hockey uniform?
"Why pray tell are the home team skaters required to wear a plain white helmet? How come no team is allowed to put a stripe or design on their helmet ... other than a logo the size of a quarter visible from the front row only? Can you imagine where the NFL would be if they had taken the same approach? Imagine attending a Bears-Packers game in Green Bay with the Pack wearing a white helmet with a tiny little G and no stripe. Imagine the Colts playing away with a blue helmet with a little tiny horseshoe and no stripe!
"The helmet is central to the brand in football. It could be in hockey, as it is in college hockey ... see the University of Michigan ... see Notre Dame. In the NHL, it would afford the opportunity to contrast clubs. If the Blue jackets wore a white helmet all the time, we could tell them from the Rangers! Last year three out of the four Cup finalists wore all black at home, with black helmets naturally... in fact all the teams that wear black at home ... wear black helmets. You really don't even need a color TV to watch the NHL right now
"My suggestion: A contest in every NHL city to choose the single helmet to be worn by the club, with one alternate if necessary but without design or color restrictions. It'll improve the brand identity of each club and the look of the game, both live and on HDTV. Goalies could still do what they have been allowed to do with their own individual design.
"Frankly, the league's Neanderthals won't do it unless Versus forces their hands. Versus could sponsor the bloody contests ...
-- James W Burrows"
Should the freedom of expression, when it comes to headgear, be limited to goalies? It's an intriguing argument, although the hockey traditionalist in us wonders if it's a good argument.
That said: Michigan does have some bitchin' lids.
Thanks for the feedback, sirs. Keep those e-mails coming.
Puck Daddy is an NHL blog edited by Greg Wyshynski. Email him, and follow him on Twitter.

Detroit 3, Montreal 2 (Nov. 21)
Posted Nov 20 2009
Dallas 5, New Jersey 3 (Nov. 21)
Posted Nov 20 2009
Chicago 5, Edmonton 2 (Nov. 21)
Posted Nov 20 2009
Edited by MJD
Edited by 'Duk
Edited by J.E. Skeets
Edited by Greg Wyshynski
Edited by Matt Hinton
Edited by E. Brennan
Edited by Jay Busbee
Edited by Jay Busbee
Edited by Steve Cofield
Edited by Chris Chase
Edited by Chris Chase
Edited by Andy Behrens
87 Comments
1 - 25 of 87
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Wouldn't more than a helmet-applied wordmark or small logo deviate from the purpose, or hopefully clean lines, of having a giant logo on the front of the sweater?
I remind that none of the lesser sports - football, basketball, baseball - go the big-crest-on-the-front route, which is but one more example of why hockey freakin' rules.
Report Abuse
Yes, it did. Check's in the mail.
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Now, if the behind the goal line camera was raised to say, the nosebleeds, then it might be good. I've always had seats behind the goalie but on the upper deck, and I enjoy that view.
Report Abuse
Let the goalies be the creative ones!
Report Abuse
Dale Hunter FTW
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Another note...Sharks used to be on FSN and they had an annoying behind the net angle that half the time you missed the goal....now that they are on comcast, you don't see that angle as much....Producers need to get a clue!
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
1 - 25 of 87