(vol. 40W, no. 7; newsletter r.n.)
editor's note: Today we feature a dual-edition of the newsletter, one from #67 and another offering from our Cap'n. And what do you know — they both begin by talking about Dave Matthews!

From #67:I made a new couple of New Year's resolutions this year. The first one was off course: I will write the newsletter immediately after the game. Well, already shot that one in the ass. The second one? Well, I decided I would only cover the positive aspects of hockey ... Nothing about how Dave Matthews got the shit kicked out of him everytime he went into the corners. Is that positive? Hmmm. Maybe not. It is positive that Russ got the first goal of the night. But then he decided to play the game under protest. So that pretty much covers it. Until the league director comes out with a decision there is no sense writing about a game that in the end might have been a forfeit. (By whom, I don't know.) If the game wasn't forfeited, it could have been a game of the ages. The Dark Ages maybe, but ages nonetheless. The Pirates could possibly been down by the score of 3-1. And if the game was a forfeit, would it matter that Farrell was a “no show”? I don't know. If he had half a brain he would protest the protest, but then we would owe a 3-pack. But failing that he should be penalized a case or two. But we will deal with that next Tuesday. If it is raining. If not Mike may be busy. But it will probably snow in which case everyone should bring their appetitive next Wednesday. Should I mention that there was some controversy over who scored the Pirates third goal? I won't by the way. The third if it had counted would in fact be nullified by the fact that the game was under protest. And we all know how the Pirates are treated in any type of hearing that involves the league ... Did I mention my 3rd resolution?

From the Captain:
Dave Matthews decided that he was going to start off the Monday game just about where Kevin had left his game off the previous evening. Dave wasn't going after anyone in particular, he was just playing that “Pops”-brand of hockey that only excess BenGay™ can bring out of a man. He was playing forward and was hunting the puck and caught a few guys not quite used to his level of intensity. Unfortunately, it led to a penalty or two, but his work ethic spurred the Pirates to stay on the slick skating and excellent puck handling of Toscano and crew. Our first goal of the night came on what was nearly a replay of the goal scored by 99 on Sunday: Gucci slid a pass to 99 who deposited a one-timer high in the net. Much to our dismay, we coughed-up the puck a number of times and watched our opponent tally twice in the first period. KennyG and 99 each had goals in the final period while the Hocky team had only one, to earn a 3-3 tie at the end of regulation ... and after overtime. A very disappointing “meeting” turnout (88 had to leave anyway so you all get a pass on this one) and an AWOL Mike Farrell made the tie more difficult to accept. Oh yeah, Vic had a meltdown when I asked him to stop the clock when his late-arriving ref partner was being attacked and delayed by angry Hocky Teem players as they disputed a goal when we were still trailing 3-2. I think that when I asked him to “please” stop the clock I somehow startled him. I will try to refrain from such colorful language with the referees in the future.

Attendance (players): Genalo, Gesior, Gucci, LeMatty, Matthews, Newcomb, Nicolosi, Maccanico (sub), McLaughlin (sub). Net: Harris.
Scratches: Cassens, Farrell (AWOL), Miller.
Scoring: 1st period: 2-1 Hocky Teem: Goal by Nicolosi (Gucci). 3rd period: 3-3 tie: Goals by Genalo (none); Nicolosi (Newcomb), PPG. Overtime: none.
date of game: 1.04.09

TIE 3-3


For filling-in (again).

For filling-in (again).

For his quote of the night (in reference to 99's discussion with Vic): “WTF was that all about?”