Bob Cole REALLY should retire

Last night I watched part of the Pittsburgh/Washington hockey game. Good game; fast, exciting, hard hitting, everything a hockey game ought to be. Even the refereeing was decent. The game even had the added bonus of my utter lack of emotional attachment to either team. Since I really didn't have a dog in the hunt, I didn't much care about the outcome, and could just sit back and enjoy the game. Except for Bob friggin' Cole.

Now, before I go on a tear, I will say this in his defense. He's not the worst hockey play by play guy I've ever heard. That particular honour goes to Paul Romanuk, a play by play guy so incredibly awful that a bar slut I knew, once upon a time, who knew absolutely nothing about hockey, upon listening to him for about 3 minutes, commented on what an idiot he was.

So, having established my belief that Cole is not the absolute worst there ever was, allow me to proceed.

Set aside from the nerve grating nasal whine he uses for a voice, and set aside the encroaching senility, which led him to state, 10 years ago, that Bobby Hull scored the cup winner (Bobby Hull left the NHL in 1972, it was his son Brett who didn't score the non-goal that decided the 1999 cup).

Instead, consider the job of play by play man. It is, as I understand it, to describe the action on the ice. At his side is the colour commentator, whose job, as I understand it, is to fill in air time with asides, tangential to the action, but for the entertainment of the audience. To, you know, colour the experience.

The play by play man's job is not:

To tell us that Washington is looking to go up 2 games to 0, or to tell us Pittsburgh is looking for a split. Bob, I think we can take it as a given that both teams want to win the frigging game. They are highly proud, highly paid professionals, and it is, after all, the playoffs, numbnuts.

To tell us that there are 4 minutes remaining. And that the score is 4 to 2. Now, Bobo, I know you've been calling games for the CBC since the late Jurassic. In that time, I'm pretty sure someone has made you aware of the fact that the CBC puts a banner across the top of the screen giving the team names, the score, the time remaining, and, if there is one, remaining penalty time. Come to think of it, that banner, whether above or below the action, is pretty standard for all sports. Since that is written right there in bold, STOP FRIGGING TELLING US.

To tell us that the players are changing. Look, dummy, a shift change is only germaine to the action if it affects the play. Telling us that a player 150' from the action is getting off the ice is not a detail we need to know.

To tell us what you think is about to happen. Every time, for example, you tell us that so and so is going to clear the puck, when he fails to do so and you need to correct yourself, it makes you sound like a bloody fool, so stop doing it.

To torture the language. For example, Bob, clearing is an act of removal. You can clear away, clear out, clear off, etc. And you could even apply any of these to certain hockey situations. You cannot, however, clear in. Semantically it doesn't work, and in hockey terms, it is incoherent. So and so cleared the puck in? Seriously? You think that statement has logical content? Arrgh.

Thank heaven the CBC has Jim Hughson to do the games I actually care about. I don't know about y'all, but I sure would be interested to know what ol' Bobo the senile play by play man has on the powers that be at the CBC.