There's been no formal announcement. Nothing public from the NHL regarding the penalty called on Chris Pronger in Friday's game that swung the result from a 3-2 Flyers win in overtime to a 3-2 loss to the Calgary Flames in a shootout.

But, privately, the league has contacted the parties involved and said it supports the call made by rookie referee Ghislain Hebert.

In case you missed it, and shame on you if you did, Pronger was positioned in front of the net as the Flyers were running a 4-on-3 power play in overtime.

Acting as a big-bodied screen, Pronger was skating back-and forth in front of the crease distracting Flames' goalie Miika Kiprusoff.

Pronger took it a step further for a brief instant, putting his gloved hand up in front of Kipper's face. The important thing to note here is Pronger had his back to the goalie, but put his left paw out to the side, blocking the goalie's vision.

He then put his hand back on his stick and simultaneously took a slash to the calf from the obviously agitated Calgary goalie.

Subsequently, Mike Richards took a shot and scored. The goal was waved off. Hebert calling an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty on Pronger.

The reason given? The Sean Avery Rule.

What's that, you may ask? Well, it was instituted immediately by the NHL two seasons ago after Avery stood in front of Devils' goalie Martin Brodeur in a playoff game, staring him in the face and waving his arms and his stick while dancing a jig.

It resulted in a New York goal and an immediate rule modification by the league.

Here's the statement discipline czar Colin Campbell issued at the time:

"An unsportsmanlike conduct minor penalty will be interpreted and applied, effective immediately, to a situation when an offensive player positions himself facing the opposition goaltender and engages in actions such as waving his arms or stick in front of the goaltender's face, for the purpose of improperly interfering with and/or distracting the goaltender as opposed to positioning himself to try to make a play," Campbell said.

Here's the key.... He said "facing the opposition goaltender."

Pronger was not facing the goalie. He had his back to him, setting a screen like so many other players do in the NHL.

Now, I know, you're saying that was just a statement by Campbell. There has to be clearer language in the actual rule book, right?

Well, you would think... except, this is the NHL, run with a see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil mentality.

Instead, what this league has wrought in this instance is another case of incompetence.

See, after that statement was issued by Campbell, which, in all honesty, was an emergency attempt to put out the latest fire started by Avery, somebody in the league office forgot to include the new language in the rule book.

Hope they don't fire that secretary.

The point is, the alleged rule does not exist anywhere other than as a statement issued by the league in the archives of the media outlets who cover the sport.

So, when the league rule book is issued to its member franchises at the beginning of the season and they rifle through it, there is nothing that says anything about distracting a goalie in front of the net.

Look, I'm not buying the whole line that Pronger was calling for the puck bit. It was obvious to me that what he did was a quick attempt to throw off the goalie. He intentionally waved his glove in Kiprusoff's face. No one can convince me otherwise.

But, by the rulebook, he did nothing wrong. By the statement made by Campbell nearly two years ago, he didn't violate that made-up on the spot rule change either.

So why the penalty? And why the quiet defense of it by the league?

Maybe because they just want this all to go away because they find themselves standing in the middle of their combined Times Square and Toronto offices with their tails between their legs.

I wouldn't be surprised if Rule 75, which focuses on unsportmanlike conduct penalties, is quietly modified in the near future to include this so-called "Avery Rule" but if you click the link above you will see it's not there now.

Ultimately, this cost the Flyers one point in the standings. It likely won't be the difference between making the playoffs or not, so it shouldn't be a life-or-death point, but it could be the difference in seeding at the top of the Eastern Conference.

All because the league doesn't know how to handle it's own bookeeping.

Of course, one also has to wonder if the call was reactionary by Hebert. In other words, there would be no penalty if there were no goal.

Alas, It's not like hockey is the only sport to run into these problems - I mean, how many people vehemently disagreed with that overturned touchdown in Week 1 of the NFL season when Detroit Lions wide receiver Calvin Johnson caught a pass and had six different body parts hit the ground in the end zone with possession only to have the would-be game-winning score reversed by a ludicrous rule.

And while the outcry from that instance will likely result in an offseason rule change, the fact of the matter was the rule existed in the rulebook, and as such needed to be called. It was the one tonic for all the anger that spewed about the subject.

Shame the NHL couldn't fall back on their rules to justify their own mistake.

UNIONDALE, N.Y. -- James van Riemsdyk was moving briskly out of the Nassau Coliseum. He was the last Flyer to leave the morning practice, and he was trying to catch up with Danny Briere, who was a few strides ahead of him.
That's because the duo - along with defenseman Oskars Bartulis - practiced a good-40 minutes longer, and much harder - then the rest of the their teammates to whom this morning skate was optional.
That's because for van Riemsdyk, Briere and Bartulis, this would be their only skate of the day as none of them would be in the lineup for tonight's tilt against the Islanders.
Briere is serving the final game of his three-game suspension. Bartulis has been the No. 7 defenseman all season, but for van Riemsdyk, this is a new position. This is unfamiliar territory. He has only been a healthy scratch once before in his young career and that was in the Stanley cup Finals. Otherwise, the only time he watched the game from the press box was because of an injury.
But now, 13 games into a fast start for the Flyers, who had the top record in the Eastern Conference heading into play Saturday night, van Riemsdyk finds himself as the extra forward and he's not thrilled about it.
"It sucks. It burns. It stings. It's not fun," he told the Daily Times. "You want to play. You want to contribute. You want to be out there. Basically it just sucks, there's no other way to put it."
It shouldn't come as too much of a surprise for van Riemsdyk, who has yet to score a
goal this season, but apparently it has.
"Obviously it sucks every time that happens but we're a good team and we've been winning so it's a coach's decision and I have to respect it," he said. "I have to just work hard and try to control the things I can control."
The question is, does he know what he has to control at this point?
The No. 2 overall pick in the 2007 NHL draft, van Riemsdyk has yet to live up to his lofty expectations.
To be fair, comparing him to No. 1 overall pick Patrick Kane is unfair because Kane left junior hockey immediately to play in the NHL while van Riemsdyk played college hockey at the University of New Hampshire for two years before coming to training camp with the Flyers.
But, it's certainly fair to look at guys drafted behind him as forwards like Sam Gagner in Edmonton, Jakub Voracek in Columbus, Brandon Sutter in Carolina and David Perron in St. Louis have all been more offensively productive to this point in their careers than van Riemsdyk.
The argument can be made though that none of those aforementioned players play on the left wing and that's true, but van Riemsdyk isn't even the top point-producing left wing in a weak draft class at the position as Dallas' Jamie Benn has outscored van Riemsdyk and he was selected 129th overall in the fifth round.
"It's all about your production on the ice and how you play the game," coach Peter Laviolette told the Daily Times. "Everybody plays it differently. Danny Briere plays it a certain way. Darroll Powe plays it a certain way. It's all about what you bring and how you produce within the structure of the team.
"At the end of the night there's got to be something from your production. You've got a guy like (Eric) Wellwood who goes in the lineup and he's doing what you ask of him. (Andreas) Nodl goes in and he's doing what you ask. (Nik) Zherdev comes back and he's doing what you ask. Tough decisions have got to be made. We've got to continue to work and develop players, but at the end of the day, decisions have to be made."
And his decision was to put van Riemsdyk on the bench for at least one game.
"It comes down to spots," the coach said. "Guys that that are playing well are in the lineup, so there's a competitiveness there. Zherdev comes back in the lineup and I think he's looked really strong the last couple games.
"Yes, I'd like to see more from James and how he plays the game. I thought he started (the season) really strong. Camp went really well for him too. But he's still a young player and he's trying to get his place and make his mark on this team."
Laviolette continued, "There's a competition here between players... well.. not a competition, but you have to earn it," he said. "Guys have got to fit into a certain spot somewhere in those top nine forwards and you got to make a decision as a coach and sometimes it's a tough decision. We'll continue to work with James and we'll continue to work on his development."
But, for now he's fallen behind Zherdev, who was in the doghouse, Nodl, who was the extra forward at the start of the season, and Wellwood, who was called up from the Phantoms as an injury replacement and is still here.
Wellwood is the big surprise, but he has been really good in his role since arriving on the team.
"He brings a lot of quickness," Laviolette said. "He's smart. He's responsible and reliable. There's a lot of things he brings to the table. We still haven't even touched on some of them. He's a good penalty killer and we haven't gone down that road so far and he's very capable on offense and the production hasn't come but the opportunities have been there. He's looked very good in his games."
And in those same games, van Riemsdyk has not.
"I think I'm squeezing the stick a little bit," van Riemsdyk said. "When you're an offensive guy and you're not scoring goals... look, you always want to be competitive and help the team win and that's good, but you want to contribute more... maybe I'm pressing a little too much and not playing the game I want to play."
..............................
NOTES: Sergei Bobrovsky will start again tonight, his sixth straight start... The Flyers have won 19 of the last 21 against the Islanders... Only two Flyers' regulars are minus players this season, Dan Carcillo (minus-2) and Mike Richards (minus-4)... The Islanders are expecting to be a bit desperate in the game tonight having lost six straight and looking to exact revenge on the Flyers for the 6-1 drubbing at Wells Fargo Center last week. "I would hope our players would look at that (game) and realize we gave them a pretty easy night," Isles coach Scott Gordon said. "We've got to be ready to play and dictate our style of play and get on them so they're not capable of theirs." Tyson Gillies went a step farther: "It's not a contact sport for nothing," he said. "Both teams are going to hit and I'm looking forward to it."

Danny Briere was none to pleased with his 3-game suspension. Here is a transcript of his interview (one in which he ended it, then called the reporters back over because he had more to say).


Flyers center Danny Briere



Q: Where you surprised by the decision of the league?



"More shocked. I think surprised is not strong enough. Honestly, I'm shocked. I honestly didn't think I would get more than, after everything else, all of the suspensions that have been handed out the last couple of years and this year, honestly, I didn't think I was going to get a game. Then I thought, ok yes I am a repeat offender, they'll probably give me a game because of it. I'm shocked that it was more than a game."



Q: When you look at it, Danny, do you think you got 3 games because the third game was against the Islanders again?



"I mean it's possible. But, what am I going to do? Am I going to fight their whole team? I've had, what, 2 or 3 fights in my life, in my career. It's not like I'm going to do anything physical, even if I play against the Islanders, if that's what they were thinking. I don't know; it's possible."



Q: Is it fair to say that the new head shot rule is factoring it? They are making examples of everybody right away.



"Yeah. I made a mistake, my stick was up. I'm the first one to admit it. It shouldn't have been there. After what he said on the faceoff, all I was thinking was I got to protect myself, after what happened to [Andrej] Meszaros, what happened with Trevor Gilles on [Braydon] Coburn. I said, 'I got to protect myself', and if you see the faceoff before, he gets me in a headlock and punches me behind the head, the same player. So I was like I got to get my head up and protect myself. What I'm disappointed in is the fact they tried to spin it as a crosscheck to the head. If you look at the replay, it's clearly not a crosscheck. A crosscheck is two hands moving forward. It's a push with one hand. The mistake I made was that my stick was up there. Is it worth 3 games for that? I don't think so. On top of it, I missed him, I didn't even get him. There are guys whose careers are in danger for bad hits to the head. [Chicago Blackhawks' defensemen Niklas] Hjalmarsson gets two games, and we don't even know what is going to happen to [Buffalo Sabres' winger Jason] Pominville. Only 2 games for that. And then you have [Pittsburgh forward Matt] Cooke on [Boston Bruins' center Marc] Savard. Savard has already lost a big amount of time. That's why I was shocked that it was more than a game.



Q: The replay looks like your stick hits him in the helmet, but you are saying it never got to his helmet?



"I think my glove grazes the top of his helmet, not my stick. He goes down because Danny Carcillo comes in and finishes his check on the faceoff. So, I understand that that made it look worse; on the play everybody thought it was me. But if you look at the replay, it's my glove that kind of grazes over his helmet. My stick doesn't touch him.



Q: Is the old hearing system still in place? Did you get a chance to talk to [NHL Executive Colin] Campbell about this?



"I did. I explained the situation. I explained that he challenged me, and that I wanted to defend myself, protect myself. I told him that I understood that my stick should've been up there. But honestly, I don't think that. [the explanation] didn't amount to anything. I think his mind was made up before he rang, because anything I said was, obviously, not taken into consideration."



Q: You said [Frans] Nielsen was cursing at you. Was it that faceoff or a previous one?



"That one."



Q: What did he say?



"That's stuff on the ice, between two players."



Q: Did he say something threatening?



"Yeah. It was some sort of challenge, and that's why I had my stick up. I wanted to protect myself."



Q: Did it end with [Campbell hanging up on you]?



"Yeah pretty much."



Q: Are you disappointed with the timing of this, considering the team is on a three game roll?



"Well it's never a good time for a suspension. If you are losing, you don't want to be suspended; you want to try and get back on track and help the team. If the team is winning, you want to keep on a roll. There is never a good time for a suspension. Either way I would be disappointed."



Q: Can you talk about your aggression?



"He punched me behind the head, and if you look at the replay I'm shocked that Nielsen is doing that. I don't retaliate. On that faceoff, one thing you can write, that I told him, 'what are you doing? I know you are frustrated but what are you trying to prove out there?' That's when he crossed the circle, and gets in my face to tell me that stuff. Even at that point, there's clearly no anger. All I'm thinking of is to protect myself. After the play, if I wanted to hurt him, I could have jumped on him, I could have punched him in the back of the head, I could have crossed checked him in the back when he's down. Then, [Islanders' goalie Rick] DiPietro comes in and spears me, and even then there's no anger, no frustration, and that's why I was a little baffled by the whole thing. Because a lot of time, they will tell you its premeditated or you clearly knew what you were doing, you were trying to get back at him. There was none of that at any point in the incident.



Q: You mentioned the serious stuff a moment ago, is this the right track to take? Is the league on the right track as far as deterrents? Were you thinking, on the ice, if you were about to get suspended?



"No you don't think about that. It just happens. I know I don't.



Q: Do you think the league has an effective policy about cracking down on hits to the head?



"I think that they need to find a way to have the same standards for everyone."

(Transcription courtesy of the Flyers)

Danny Briere was none to pleased with his 3-game suspension. Here is a transcript of his interview (one in which he ended it, then called the reporters back over because he had more to say).


Flyers center Danny Briere



Q: Where you surprised by the decision of the league?



"More shocked. I think surprised is not strong enough. Honestly, I'm shocked. I honestly didn't think I would get more than, after everything else, all of the suspensions that have been handed out the last couple of years and this year, honestly, I didn't think I was going to get a game. Then I thought, ok yes I am a repeat offender, they'll probably give me a game because of it. I'm shocked that it was more than a game."



Q: When you look at it, Danny, do you think you got 3 games because the third game was against the Islanders again?



"I mean it's possible. But, what am I going to do? Am I going to fight their whole team? I've had, what, 2 or 3 fights in my life, in my career. It's not like I'm going to do anything physical, even if I play against the Islanders, if that's what they were thinking. I don't know; it's possible."



Q: Is it fair to say that the new head shot rule is factoring it? They are making examples of everybody right away.



"Yeah. I made a mistake, my stick was up. I'm the first one to admit it. It shouldn't have been there. After what he said on the faceoff, all I was thinking was I got to protect myself, after what happened to [Andrej] Meszaros, what happened with Trevor Gilles on [Braydon] Coburn. I said, 'I got to protect myself', and if you see the faceoff before, he gets me in a headlock and punches me behind the head, the same player. So I was like I got to get my head up and protect myself. What I'm disappointed in is the fact they tried to spin it as a crosscheck to the head. If you look at the replay, it's clearly not a crosscheck. A crosscheck is two hands moving forward. It's a push with one hand. The mistake I made was that my stick was up there. Is it worth 3 games for that? I don't think so. On top of it, I missed him, I didn't even get him. There are guys whose careers are in danger for bad hits to the head. [Chicago Blackhawks' defensemen Niklas] Hjalmarsson gets two games, and we don't even know what is going to happen to [Buffalo Sabres' winger Jason] Pominville. Only 2 games for that. And then you have [Pittsburgh forward Matt] Cooke on [Boston Bruins' center Marc] Savard. Savard has already lost a big amount of time. That's why I was shocked that it was more than a game.



Q: The replay looks like your stick hits him in the helmet, but you are saying it never got to his helmet?



"I think my glove grazes the top of his helmet, not my stick. He goes down because Danny Carcillo comes in and finishes his check on the faceoff. So, I understand that that made it look worse; on the play everybody thought it was me. But if you look at the replay, it's my glove that kind of grazes over his helmet. My stick doesn't touch him.



Q: Is the old hearing system still in place? Did you get a chance to talk to [NHL Executive Colin] Campbell about this?



"I did. I explained the situation. I explained that he challenged me, and that I wanted to defend myself, protect myself. I told him that I understood that my stick should've been up there. But honestly, I don't think that. [the explanation] didn't amount to anything. I think his mind was made up before he rang, because anything I said was, obviously, not taken into consideration."



Q: You said [Frans] Nielsen was cursing at you. Was it that faceoff or a previous one?



"That one."



Q: What did he say?



"That's stuff on the ice, between two players."



Q: Did he say something threatening?



"Yeah. It was some sort of challenge, and that's why I had my stick up. I wanted to protect myself."



Q: Did it end with [Campbell hanging up on you]?



"Yeah pretty much."



Q: Are you disappointed with the timing of this, considering the team is on a three game roll?



"Well it's never a good time for a suspension. If you are losing, you don't want to be suspended; you want to try and get back on track and help the team. If the team is winning, you want to keep on a roll. There is never a good time for a suspension. Either way I would be disappointed."



Q: Can you talk about your aggression?



"He punched me behind the head, and if you look at the replay I'm shocked that Nielsen is doing that. I don't retaliate. On that faceoff, one thing you can write, that I told him, 'what are you doing? I know you are frustrated but what are you trying to prove out there?' That's when he crossed the circle, and gets in my face to tell me that stuff. Even at that point, there's clearly no anger. All I'm thinking of is to protect myself. After the play, if I wanted to hurt him, I could have jumped on him, I could have punched him in the back of the head, I could have crossed checked him in the back when he's down. Then, [Islanders' goalie Rick] DiPietro comes in and spears me, and even then there's no anger, no frustration, and that's why I was a little baffled by the whole thing. Because a lot of time, they will tell you its premeditated or you clearly knew what you were doing, you were trying to get back at him. There was none of that at any point in the incident.



Q: You mentioned the serious stuff a moment ago, is this the right track to take? Is the league on the right track as far as deterrents? Were you thinking, on the ice, if you were about to get suspended?



"No you don't think about that. It just happens. I know I don't.



Q: Do you think the league has an effective policy about cracking down on hits to the head?



"I think that they need to find a way to have the same standards for everyone."

(Transcription courtesy of the Flyers)

So, Danny Briere had his confab with NHL disciplinarian Colin Campbell this morning.

The result, a three-game suspension.

I ask, why?

Look, I know he took a swipe at the back of Franz Nielsen's head with the shaft of his stick on a faceoff. He got the back of Nielsen's helmet and combined with a check from behind by Dan Carcillo, drove Nielsen into the ice.

It's a move I've seen many hockey players perform in the past without suspension.

Is it dirty? Yes. Is it part of the game? Yes.

Was it worthy of a suspension? Yeah, probably. But one game would have sufficed - for the premeditation of the hit. After all, it's not like Nielsen was injured (although after what he did after taking the hit, I would think he dressed up as a turtle for Halloween).

But, Briere got three games.

Now, the converse. New York Islanders goalie Rick DiPietro left the crease to get engaged in some of the hub-bub of the same game at least twice, although some will argue he did it three times.

Regardless, all he got was a minor penalty - once. And, after Briere's hit on Nielsen, DiPietro went after him and speared him in the groin with his goalie's stick.

I guess the league watched the MSG feed of the game because they both missed the spear.

But watch the Comcast feed, you'll see it.

What did DiPietro get? No penalty. No review. No fine. No suspension.

But Briere gets three games.

The rational side of me understands Campbell's decision - he had an opportunity to include the rematch between the Flyers and Islanders in the suspension, so he did that - just to try to quell any animosity by the Islanders toward Briere.

But, you know what? Whatever happened to letting the players handle these kinds of situations on the ice themselves? It's why fighting is still allowed in the sport.

If the Islanders wanted to try to pay back Briere Saturday, why not afford them that opportunity? If it caused the two teams to have another game full of penalties, then so be it. It's hockey. It's a rivalry. It's what makes the sport great.

Did anyone have a problem with Mike Richards going after Matt Cooke off the opening faceoff 24 hours earlier? Can't tell me that wasn't premeditated, but there wasn't even an instigation minor handed out there.

By taking Briere out of that game means this whole boiling pot will continue to simmer into another Flyers-Islanders tilt when Briere would be available - which isn't until December 5th.

Being the adjudicator of discipline, Campbell should have taken the whole picture into consideration, rather than make a rash decision.

Instead, that swift justice makes everyone lose - The Flyers will be without their top scoring center longer than they should, Briere is over-punished, and the Islanders don't get the opportunity to do what they need to do for another month.

Oh, and DiPietro got off scott free.

Just another misjudgment by a league that is prone to such mistakes.

...........................................................

Eric Wellwood has been recalled from the Phantoms to replace Briere while Nik Zherdev will be back in the lineup to replace Andreas Nodl who will miss the game tonight against Carolina with a shoulder injury.

Meanwhile, Sergei Bobrovsky will again be in goal, starting for the fourth straight game.