Guide to Creating an NHL Conspiracy Theory

Post image for Guide to Creating an NHL Conspiracy Theory

by Matt Reitz on April 22, 2010

I don’t know if it’s because X-Files was canceled too many years ago and the nerds have gotten bored—but there seems to be a few too many conspiracy theories this post season. Lately, it’s been Vancouver Canucks fans who have gone FULL Red Wings fan on us with their level of suspicion. It’s like the extra men on the ice in Game 2 were the guys on the grassy knoll and Game 3 was played in Roswell, New Mexico. If a questionable call goes against them, it’s no longer because hockey is a game that is filled with borderline calls. That would be much too rational. Or boring.

No, every gray area call means there’s a grand scheme behind the scenes that is specifically designed to create heartache and pain. We’re at the point where the fans are tirelessly working to pull the curtain back in hopes of seeing the Wizard. Surprise—if you pull the curtain back, all you’ll find is an inept penalty kill. Get over yourselves… YOUR team is no different than any other team. All 16 teams want to win and as much as it pains the tin-foil hat wearers to hear this—maybe they’re losing games because the better team is actually winning.

As this season has seen the rise of another paranoid fan base, I can’t help but feel sorry for them. It’s almost like they’ve had to reinvent the wheel with how they created a world where everyone is conspiring against them. The reality is, in hockey (and any sport for that matter), evil plots usually have the same basic bullet points. In the interest of saving time for the next paranoid clan of fans, here are 5 things that fans should try to include when shaping a conspiracy theory.

Officiating

Of course, the focal point of any myopic scheme to oppress a team starts with officiating. As most die-hard, objective fans know, your team is going to get good calls and bad calls. No matter HOW much fans would like the officials to be perfect, they won’t be. However, this fact shall be expressly ignored by concocting a grand tale of how your team is getting screwed. Be sure to highlight every single borderline call, throw your hands in the air, and call bullshit. But make sure you do it in a way that makes outsiders think that the call wasn’t a borderline call at all. Make it sound like it was obvious to the casual observer. And if replays show that you’re dead wrong, you can always fall back on the trusty, “The referees shouldn’t have called that at that point in the game.” It really is the answer for anything.

The League

If we were just talking about a bad call here or there, the storytellers would only be able to invent a story on the Stephane Auger/Brian Dennehy level. No, to really, truly get into a conspiracy, the conscious decision to eliminate a team must come from the top. Government conspiracies don’t start with a lowly rental cop. Corporate conspiracies don’t start with the janitor. And NHL conspiracies don’t start with officials. If we’re to have a serious tin-foil hat convention, make sure that everyone knows the referees are merely a tool in the implementation of a plan set in motion by much more important people. In the NHL’s case, the important people are much shorter and arrogant. Here are some standards that have gained traction over the last few years. Feel free to use these—and if you’re feeling REALLY creative, you can come up with one of your own! (Pay no attention to the fact that some of these theories obviously contradict one another. It’s all about YOU and YOUR theory.)

- The league hates Canada and wants them to fail.

- The league will do anything it can to make sure Sidney Crosby wins.

- The NHL will fix games/series for Sunbelt teams in the US to prove that Bettman’s vision will work.

- The NHL wants teams in the Northeast to win because they get the league better ratings on NBC.

- Ken Holland has naked pictures of Bill Daly to ensure they get whatever they want.

The Opponents

Why would there be a scheme solely to screw you? To fully develop a strong conspiracy theory, you must start including reasons why outsiders would want your opponent to win. Capitals, Red Wings, and Flyers fans have found a standing excuse by claiming that Gary Bettman wants his baby boy Sidney Crosby to win everything. There’s been an article that claims that the Kings are getting the calls because Bettman wants his Sunbelt dream to thrive and that is only possible if that small, new market in Los Angeles is given extra advantages. Nevermind the fact that the Kings have been in existence longer than the Canucks and that Los Angeles is the second largest market in North America. If someone calls you on your weak and flimsy argument (because it will be weak and flimsy), just interrupt them and yell louder. It works for politicians, why can’t it work for hockey fans?

Luck

Luck happens. Players get good bounces, they get lucky bounces. Coaches will tell you that you make your own luck and if you play hard enough, you’ll get those bounces. But the fact is, sometimes the puck will hit a partition on the glass and redirect straight into your net. It sucks, but it happens. We all deal with it.

"Maybe Bettman cursed my stick..... yeah, thats it."

When bad luck happens to you and you’re formulating a conspiracy theory, you MUST cultivate all of these examples to your advantage. Use bigger words like “cursed” or “jinxed.” They make the situation sound much direr than simply saying “we were unlucky.”

Disassociate Yourself From ANY Responsibility

- If your team can’t score on the power play, it’s someone else’s fault.

- If your penalty kill was inept, it’s someone else’s fault.

- If you were a sub-par road team during the season and that trend continues during the playoffs, it’s someone else’s fault.

- If one of your players commits 5 penalties in 2 games because he’s a poor defenseman, do not acknowledge the fact that he takes penalties because he sucks. (Sidenote: Thank God it wasn’t Alexander Burrows who took those 5 penalties—can you imagine the uproar then?).

- If a player pulls out a gun and actually SHOOTS an opponent on the ice, point to the rule book and point out that it never expressly prohibits firearms during game play.

- No matter what happens on the ice, never, EVER take any responsibility. Once you do so, people will start seeing chinks in your armor. There is ALWAYS a bigger reason for the shit that happens during the game—but never your fault. Stay strong.

_______________________

Obviously, this isn’t an exhaustive list. Any time you can add more points to your theory, the more believable it will be to idiots who will believe anything that makes their team seem less sucky. Add things that don’t have any bearing on the situation if you have to. The key is to hold up something shiny so delusional fans forget about the actual play on the ice that is truly costing them victories.

It’s a great idea to make some kind of reference to how the opposing city makes it virtually impossible to win in their building. Things that would fall under this category would be illegal noise makers such as cowbells, smaller rink surfaces, flying octopi/snakes/hats, or bad ice conditions.

Another fine practice is to boil an entire game down into one play. It doesn’t matter what happens for the other 59 minutes and 59 seconds of the game. If one thing goes against you, focus on that and make that the reason why you lost the game. If people ever bring up the fact that you had your opportunities, it’s best to blindly ignore anything they say and just start your argument over again. If you say it enough times and loud enough, chances are they’ll just give up. No one likes talking to a wall. And yes, you’re a wall.

And if you get really, really desperate, you can always blame your goaltender’s knob.

Matt Reitz is the Editor-In-Chief here at ViewFromMySeats.com and former NHL Writer for ProHockeyTalk on NBCSports. When he’s not shoving a mic in the face of NHLers or explaining why home teams should wear white, he’s usually trying to figure out what song to play next on his iPod. It’s a never-ending job.

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Google+ 

Comments have been disabled for this post.
Sort: Newest | Oldest

For some reason Quisp your responses didn't come to me till today. I am not saying that they are out to get the Canucks either. It doesn't surprise me that your brain can't handle the fact that maybe they are trying to grow markets in spots where they were hurting before. Game 7's = more money. A bad call can sway the game, it is called momentum. I don't think they are against the Canucks I was just explaining that it might not be as pure as people think it is. PS: Did you watch game six the call against goalie interference was shit, Quick was out of his net and one of the La Kings guys were checking the Canucks player. Also the call against Daniel for hooking was complete garbage.As for your comment on the kick in the goal. Obviously not everyone agreed because even sports analyst were complainging about it. Mike Murphy and Bettman even had to talk to the media because the call was so terrible. Now if you were watching any hockey during the regular season, for example the detroit goal that went off Bertuzzi's skate, you would know that most goals in this similar situation were allowed, even over ruled. The only reason the kicking rule came into effect is because they didn't want skates lifting off the ice and hurting someone, mainly the goalie.This rule and the size of the goalie pads made it hard to score, so they changed it once more allowing deflections. Now if you are going off of what Mike Murphy side, that it was a kicking motion but it wasn't a distinct kicking motion.... then I really think you should stop watching hockey. First of all it would have counted based on the fact the refs called it a goal and the only way they are suppose to over rule the call is by having proof that it was a distinct kicking motion, and pretty sure mike said it wasn't a distinct kicking motion, so the call on the ice should have stood. Obviously after 6 mins of watching the video review they weren't sure what to call it, therefore it should have remained a goal.Now I am sure you don't have a degree in physics, nor I doubt you actual saw his skate "leave" the ice. A toe twitching in his skate, the fact he plays soccer, his eyes are on the puck ( yea im sure you can see where they are looking superman), the fact he is a great player, none of these points which I have heard prove that he kicked it in. You would have a better arguement if you said it was an intentional deflection, but even that my friend should not stand. You don't look at the whole picture, the fact he was getting checked, the fact he obviously didn't want to run over the goalie. To be honest it sounds like you are a LA Kings fan, and really none of this matters now since the Canucks just won the series. Here comes the Hawks.that it was a Now i hope you are a specialist in stopping and have? a degree in physics if you are going to argue that his skate lifted off the ice a bit. Give me a break.

Matt Reitz is the King of the Conspiracy!!! Lets take a quick look back at some of the real good conspiracys he has manafested over the years.1. Remember when he swore that Pete Carrol, Jim Tressel, and the BCS were only letting USC and OSU in the National Championship Game with the lone purpose of keeping Nebraska so far down that they really did become the Cornfuckers.2. Or when he said Mrs. Seats was only marring him for his money.3. How about when he said the NHL fixed games 2-5 of the 1993 Stanley Cup Finals between LA and Mtl. Something about after LA dominated game one (in Montreal) Bettman said the only way Wayne Gretzky was going to lift the cup in tinseltown was over Don Cherries dead body. Why God, that would have been a fair trade for Lord Stanley to spend one year in LA. (I can only imagine how many soles Disney had to sell to get the cup to Matt's own back yard. That must hurt)4. How about the conspiricy or maybe this would be a charade that only males are successful in the Journalism world of the NHL. I mean he hides the fact that he was neutered years ago.I am just saying Pot. Don't go calling you local Vancouver fan Green.

Matt Reitz is definitely part of this whole conspiracy thing. There's like... ...2 letters from Matt's name in the word conspiracy. 2 letters!!!

Matt Reitz is obviously part of the conspiracy and not to be trusted.PS- c'mon, you act like wings fans last year didn't have a legitimate complaint about the too many men thing. When I have friends that were at the game and Pens fans telling me that they could hear LaRue yelling at the Pens to get a player off of the ice instead of just calling it, I tend to feel like something is amiss.

twitchy67 You are right about that call, I just rewatched it. When i watch games i tend to get heated, but it for sure was a skate. I still stand by my point the penalty was weak. I do agree it isn't one sided. I think a lot of teams are getting called for bad plays, not just the Canucks. It is hard being such a big fan and not getting reasonable answers for the wishy washy calls. People want to know what is going on in the league. Why are the calls being so confused. I just want them to get their rule book together. They did a good job about the hitting rule, letting the public know when it was going to take effect. But this whole "tape" situation is crazy. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Wow people are ignorant. Canucks fans don't shout conspiracy...heck we all say the same thing "Our pk sucks eggs and our pp is useless." And for all the 12 year olds our there, that's power play, not peepee. We don't lay blame on anyone but our team. Most of us are Canadians from places other than Calgary and therefore actually have a clue about hockey. Sure, we're as homer-y as the next teams fans, but that's what being a fan is about. At the end of the day we know why we lose games or win games. And that is sometimes a direct result of a bad call or a non call. To Danny Girl, Bieksa wasn't high sticked he took a skate to the face; there was no missed call there. But that doesn't change that the too many men was farcical and the wrong call. Interestingly it wasn't even a ref that made the call.Reffing has been bad both ways at times...last night there was a blatant trip by the Canucks that wasn't called that resulted in the game winning goal. About time. There isn't a hockey fan in the world who actually watches hockey that can honestly say the Sedin disallowed goal had conclusive evidence that it was kicked. It was the wrong call, and a blatantly bad wrong call at that. Is that a conspiracy? No, the only people who think that are the Vancouver Province, which is the worst written sports section in the world. Damien Cox would actually be an improvement on most of the writers for the province, and he's possibly the worst sports writer ever born. So there's that.But no, Canucks *fans* are not going Red Wings on this, just the media. Canucks fans are rightfully complaining about a couple bad calls or non calls (how can you say Sedin was NOT high sticked when the stick was stuck in his visor? come on...). But we all also know that we didn't lose any game this series due to bad calls or missed calls alone; we've lost cuz our special teams have sucked.

kopitar high stick... I guess they didn't see it. I saw it on a replay but they don't have a replay to look at for that. you probably think the refs should have seen the stuck stick and inferred that kopitar high-sticked sedin. i wouldn't have been surprised if they had done that, but i understand why they didn't. they are only supposed to call what they see, not what they can infer probably occurred.

A subpar team during the regular season? Last time I checked the Canucks won the Northwest division with 49 wins and 103 points. Suggest you look up the word "subpar".

The major problem with the NHL is they refuse to say they made a mistake. That is all the fans want to hear. It was a bad call. No one expects it to be changed, they just want proper reasoning why the calls have been for certain plays. You see the goal Bertuzzi got against Columbus? It was the same thing. People pay for tickets, pay for PPV during the year. They just want a fair man running the show. He takes no resposibility for issues, never has, never will. Trust me I think these men are too incompetant to screw over the Canucks alone. I just think maybe it is time for new men that actually care about making the game fair? Maybe?

Yes, but just because you think it was a bad call doesn't mean it was a bad call. I think it was a good call. So I think it's fair. Actually, you're just trying to bully people with all this b.s. about how if you don't agree with me you're not a real hockey fan. The truth is nobody really gives a **** about the Vancouver Canucks other than their fans. Sorry. We don't sit around thinking up ways to screw you over. Except now I can't wait for the next call to go against you because it will be fun to watch you all go out of your minds.

Wow i am happy you stated so much proof in your statement Sarge. Let me guess you watch one team and thats it. You must be like the NHL vice-president Mike Murphy who knows what the Canucks winger was thinking during that play. Or maybe you and Bettman can make up excuses for the bad wording and call, is it 1 am there too? I don't need to sob, i made valid points and when you actually can come back more then hating a goaltender then we can talk. If you read my post you would realize that I don't think they are playing the best hockey, but it doesn't make it right not to give fair calls.PPS: I want San Jose to win.... The sharks deserve it, but they need to play harder. For all the money NHL is making you think they could get better cameras to show goals and non goals.

I think this article was highly amusing, however you obviously haven't been watching the series.No one is saying L.A. hasn't played hard or earned their goals however there are a lot of calls not being called.-Henrik got a high stick to his face, stuck in visor everyone saw it, it doesn't matter if you are injured you still should make the call.-The ref raising his hand for a penalty then not calling it.- L.A. king players holding Canuck sticks in front of the net, should be a penalty. Happened quite a few times in multiple games, not called.- The high stick that led to too many men on the ice. It drew blood and it was a hard high stick.- The non goal against Daniel, when the rules clearly state that it has to be a kicking motion, we all know this rule is to ensure that no one gets cut from the skates but it should have been called a goal. If you watch the take with Mike explaining it, he completely contradicts himself. He said it was and wasn't a kicking motion which should have made the call inconclusive, therefore the original call should have stood, it was a goal. PS: Bettman said in a later interview that it was a hard call being it was 1:30 in the morning. Terrible excuse. Maybe create a warroom on the westcoast to deal with these problems if you are going to use that.I don't care if it is the Canucks, or the slashing call given to the Hawks when their player did it, the refs need to wake up.The problem is with all these rules changes have made the calling so off the wagon. No one even knows what a hit is anymore. What the league needs to do is take out the subjective rules that really don't do much for the game, IE: what happened to Daniel. The rule about deflecting the puck into the net intentionally off a skate, hand etc. ( That is what the ref should have called during that game btw. ) But the problem with this rule is it is subjective only. You look to where his head might be, who is checking him, then even things like because he is a good hockey player, because he plays soccer. All the above are just subjective, not physical therefore if they should just take goals off the skates out all together. Best way to explain it is if you compare this call to like a high stick one or slashing. These two calls have a physical guideline, how high the stick is, how hard the hit is, or if the stick breaks. You can judge honestly by a replay. The only one I can think of that is similar to the intentional skate to goal rule is tripping/diving. Being able to tell what is a dive and what is a trip. Then again if you go to replay it will show. But how the emotions are shown can change the outcome, but this rule needs to be inplace for the safety of the players or we would have sticks everywhere. Emotions are high during the playoffs, subjective opinions should be left out. We can all hope refs aren't biased but what human isn't? No one can prove if Daniel intentionally stopped it in. If you say you can that is .... you know what. Make it so goals off the skate don't count, end of discussion. Most people just want a fair game, obviously something is wrong or there wouldn't be so much going on in the news about it. You can pretend hockey is pure and wholesome but really.... look at baseball basketball. They actually proved eventually that there was men in the game changing the outcome. This is hilarious considering they don't even have salary caps for pay. God forbid that NHL could be trying to make more money. Having the series go longer, increases sales on tickets, ratings, sale of jerseys etc. You don't think that L.A. and Vancouver being close doesn't create more viewers in LA? Look at the sports teams they compete with. I won't say they are rigging anything, but don't keep your eyes so closed. I only care because I love hockey and I want the best team to win. If it is L.A. so be it, trust me teams want to win fair and square.You are right Lou hasn't played well since the olympics, the D has a list of injuries a mile long. The Sedin boys haven't been being as tough as they need to be. They are taking dumb penalty calls. But this isn't about them. This is about the game. And no offense Canadians will always love hockey win or lose, look at Toronto. Don't ever accuse but don't act as it isn't possible. Since Bettman has been in charge Canada hasn't won a cup. Look at all the no goals that have happened in the past playoff games.... It isn't Canada vs. the US it is teams that have had shitty calls this year vs. the NHL league. Look at the fine Shane O'Brien got for what... doing something L.A. did in Vancouver. The fine Burrows had, when there was enough to question the actions of the ref. We just want answers.The problem is Bettman might use to love hockey but now he just sweeps it under the rug. I could careless if Vancouver wins this series, L.A. has been playing better but this year has had a ton of problems with the game. If you are true hockey fan, you would care too.

Wow, i cant believe you got that much out while sobbing so hard. Keep pointing them fingers elsewhere instead of where the problems really are; sub par goaltending and special teams play. It really helps your argument.

"Don't ever accuse but don't act as it isn't possible."Everyone on the planet saw the kicking motion. "Distinct" mean you can see it. Maybe you thought it meant "gigantic." It doesn't. I just got done reading a comment on another blog (mine) from a canucks fan trying to tell me that only goals that are kicked in with a big swinging "pendulum" motion are disallowed. You seem like a bunch of crackpots saying **** like this.The "don't act as if it isn't possible" thing is exactly the point. It's not possible. You want people to concede that a reasonable explanation for the too-many-men penalty and the disallowed goal is a conspiracy of the highest level officials to deny vancouver a cup? It's not. Is it literally possible for a conspiracy to exist? Why, yes. Would these things be evidence of it? Not at all. Apply Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation is preferred. They called the too-many-men penalty because everyone in the universe could see the seven players and count them. They disallowed the goal because they saw him kick the puck. That is the standard. Distinct means you can see it. They saw it. I saw it. It wasn't big but it doesn't have to be big. There is no small, medium, large distinction. It's yes or no, kick or not. It has to be observable with the eye. Which it was. "If you are true hockey fan, you would care too."Yes, absolutely. This was going to be my next point. If any reasonable people actually thought there was a conspiracy against the canucks, they (we) would be upset. Because that's criminal. I don't care if people are cheating on behalf of a team I support. Most sports fans (I would say all, except maybe for four year-olds and gamblers) would recoil from criminal b.s.. It taints everything. The fact that nobody at all anywhere on earth thinks the anti-canucks theory is anything but ridiculous ought to tell you something. But of course it doesn't. Because everyone is in on it. Everyone is out to get you. "No one can prove if Daniel intentionally stopped it in."No one has to prove anything. The officials saw with their eyes Sedin kicking the puck. "Intent" is built into the idea of "kicking." That is to say, if you see him kick it in, you don't need to go any further. "obviously something is wrong or there wouldn't be so much going on in the news about it"But the story in the news is how crazy you are. Don't you see that?

This is the most reasonable thing I've ever read on the internet. Thank you.

Jen, thanks for the exceptional post. It needed to be said and you articulated it perfectly. Nice job!Kyle- I love your first comment. Could you please relay this message to all Senators fans who don't understand the real reason they're going to lose this series tonight: they lack the depth and skill the Penguins have (and boast).

I wish I could take credit, but this one was all Matt! I just did the editor/post thing while he was being an irresponsible journalist and picking a playoff hockey game OVER his website obligations! THE NERVE!! I made him fix it, though - now Canucks fans aren't wanting to set me on fire or something. ;)For the record, I definitely gave this post my stamp of approval....

Good stuff. I've been guilty in the past of this, but now standing on the other side and listening to Habs fans I'm starting to see how ridiculous it all is.

I have said that the refs have made some god-awful calls against the Habs (and non-calls vs the Caps) but I've also followed that up by saying that officiating is way down the list of reasons why the Canadiens are on the brink of elimination. There's no conspiracy and I just can't get on board with the idea that the refs are trying alter the outcome of a series.

I think all of us are guilty at some point... At least re: officiating. Between passion and adreneline, they're an easy target when we're pissed! :)We might need to start a running list of all the teams that are getting the calls! The league wants the Pens, Caps, and Yotes to win... and the Canucks to lose. I'm having a hard time keeping track...(And good stuff with The Checking Line!)

Thank you for this!!I can't believe that anyone, in this day in age, would think there is a Gary Bettman conspiracy going on. This isn't Shoeless Joe Jackson for crying out loud! Upsets happen, refs make mistakes, it's hockey people!

This was better than a deep muscle massage! I'm so fed up with people claiming that the refs are "against" one team or another, or that the league is scheming to rig certain matchups. Today's special is that the league wants Ovi vs Sid in the East Finals. Wasn't that likely anyway, considering that, oh, I don't know....they're great teams??? If the league really wanted to scheme and maximize at the same time, why couldn't they rig each series so that they go 7 games, thus boosting ratings and revenue? Nah, that wouldn't make any sense.The truth is, I would love to unfollow everyone on twitter that bitches about behind the scenes plotting. But I happen to like some of these people, so I can only keep them in my prayers and hope they get better.

Totally agree. I've asked people "If the league wants Ovi vs Sid so bad, why not move teams around and have one in the east and the other in the "west" so that they can get their ultimate finals?" Their answer is usually "we'll, they'd never do that..." which I find pretty ironic, considering the others things they think up. Awesome post. And... GO KINGS! :D

That's because we all know they want another Red Wings vs Pens series Carlos! I thought everyone knew that. ;)

I know exactly what you mean Kyle! I follow a ton of Canucks fans (and actually really like the Nucks when they're not playing the Kings), but I find myself avoiding Twitter altogether because I'd rather save myself the irritation. I like them, and I'm sure I'll like them again after the playoffs are over.... But I'm sick of hearing about the injustice after EVERY loss. What's worse is that there a few teams that have fans that routinely reach for the conspiracy card....Interesting how the refs are fine after victories.

You're only paranoid if they aren't conspiring against you. Canuck fans are just searching for some kind answer to the strange chain of events and offical decions that seems to be forming in their playoffs. We'll see if the "breaks" start going their way as the series goes on....

I don't want to believe the NHL is fixing games, but after following the Avs-Sharks, I can't see how it doesn't happen. Answer this, how does SJ have DOUBLE the PPs of the Avs? The count right now is 24-13. So my math is a little off, but same difference. Here's the breakdown by game:Sharks: 2,7,6,2,7 - 24Avs: 2,4,2,2,3 - 13As you can see, the Avs NEVER had more PP than the Sharks in any game. Game 5 was 4-0 PP advantage for the Sharks by the end of the second period, when the game was already over bc 3-0 Sharks advantage against an injury-depleted Avs (Mueller/Hejduk/Stoa/Jones). So if you throw out the token PPs given during the 3rd period the tally would be 21-10.

Previous post:

Next post: