This is Gary. We met him down by the glass in San Jose, before the Canucks came out for their warmup. You'll notice that Gary is wearing a Roberto Luongo jersey with the C on it.
Gary spawned a hearty debate amongst our group (a group which included myself, Skeeter, our wives, San Jose fan Art, and Kari, our Worst Contest Ever winner) over whether or not this was a foul. If you're wearing a player's jersey with a C on it, and that player never wore the C, that's a foul. There's actually a square on Jersey Foul Bingo for this exact foul. But Luongo is a special case, right? You see, while Roberto Luongo was the captain of the Canucks last year, he was forbidden by the NHL from actually wearing the C on his chest because he's a goalie. By the letter of the letter law, he never wore the jersey Gary is wearing, and that's a foul. That said, Luongo was the captain, and probably should have been able to wear the C on the ice. And, as Art pointed out, he actually did, once: in the 08-09 team photo. Is that enough to give this one a pass?
I've never cared for the practice of sneaking pictures of jersey fouls, because I don't like taking sneaky photos of people and putting them on the Internet in order to make fun of them. Doesn't seem right. With that in mind, I approached Gary for a fully honest pic, his opinion on the matter, and to find out whether or not he put the C on the jersey himself, perhaps as some sort of protest against a silly league rule. Unfortunately, he couldn't remember if he bought the jersey that way or not.
Gary was a good sport about the whole thing. He told me that he thought it wasn't a foul (he was biased). His friend Sandeep, however, agreed with me. "Dude," Sandeep said, "You're a foul."
Maybe he is. What do you guys think?
No foul, as long as that team photo holds up in court...
ReplyDeleteI'd let it slide this time
ReplyDeleteHaha...I'll be honest, I have the exact same jersey, with a C for Luongo. He was the captain when I got it, and I think the rule is stupid, so I chose to have the C.
ReplyDeleteSo even if it's considered a jersey foul, I don't care...it's visual recognition that Luongo was the captain.
Something to note: the jersey Luongo is wearing in the team picture is the away white jersey, with "Vancouver" over the Orca-C. Gary is wearing the third jersey with a C, which Luongo has never worn.
ReplyDeleteThis is so technical.
ReplyDeleteI've seen the mutant two-team jersey's sported by some on Puck Daddy's round up of fouls, but I have yet to see that at a Nucks game. Would be funny if it were CHI/VAN, or CAL/VAN....the rage it would inspire....
ReplyDeleteWe actually saw a Flying Skate frankenjersey on the trip. Someone had taken a the Canucks' home and away jerseys and stitched 'em together. As frankenjerseys go, it didn't look too bad.
ReplyDeleteMind you, it still looked bad.
If someone can wear a Messier C jersey and not get a jersey foul, then a Luongo C jersey should be legit.
ReplyDeleteI know technically a Messier C jersey is alright, but really it's not.
as long as gary got the jersey while luongo was captain its not a foul
ReplyDeleteThat does sound pretty awesome...the Frlying Skate was already garrish and kinda ugly, so making a mutant jersey out of that could be potentially visually pleasing in a twisted way.
ReplyDeleteAnd by Frlying, of course, I mean Flying.
ReplyDeleteI think the biggest foul is that Gary doesn't know whether or not the 'C' was on the jersey at the time of purchase. How/when else would it have got there? Did he not check the jersey when he bought it? Did he forget about the time he went back to the jersey store and specially ordered the captain's 'C'? Nothing against Gary, but if I were spending $200 on a jersey I'd be sure to thoroughly check what's on it.
ReplyDeletea chicken hawk is not an owl
ReplyDeletethe refs last night were surely foul
who care's some jersey has a “C”
rather petty it seems to me
or petulant pomposity
arrogant animosity
and subhuman hypocrisy
to not just let poor gary be
i wonder who you think you are
a hockey buff and scrabble star
who now dictates what people wear
when fair is foul and foul is fair
i find your blog to be the best
but this new low i must protest
chicken chick
a jersey fowl
ReplyDeletei knew a fowl from new jersey
her father was a guinea hen
a gay fellow as you might guess
her mother a comedienne
as chickens go she was quite fine
she went to school to study zen
i told her that was not the way
and took her to a gambling den
she listened to a clapping hand
and placed a bet on twenty nine
then grabbed her winnings from the wheel
and left me for a buddhist shrine
i think of her from time to time
winsomely when church bells chime
chicken hawk
I think if he didn't get it custom with the "C" it's fine. If he bought a Luongo jersey with the "C", it's not a jersey foul. It actually costs money to remove the damn "C" and "A" from a jersey as well as adding one.
ReplyDeleteConsider this scenario: You and four friends are going to wear the jerseys of your favorite Canuck captains for your trip, let's say, for the Eastern Conference road swing. Your friends are sporting Smyl, Linden, Naslund and Henrik Sedin. You want to go as Luongo. Are you going to be the only one of your group without a C on his jersey? Are you going to invite having to explain to Pens fans that Luongo was also a Captain, since they only became fans last season? Are you going to invite debate from Philly fans about whether Luongo was a real Captain?
ReplyDeleteScrew that. Unless you're wearing a goalie mask with a C on it, put a C on the damned jersey, like the Canucks WOULD have done if they'd been allowed.
I feel that it gets a pass under the Protest Jersey clause.
ReplyDeleteAt Rogers Arena on Monday, a guy was wearing a Sedin jersey. On the back it had "SEDIN" and underneath that, "Daniel/Henrik 22/33". On one sleeve was "22" and the other had "33". Didn't see the front to notice if it said "A/C", but probably did! Couldn't he have just picked one? I'm sure the twins are fed up having to share!
ReplyDeleteI think it's okay, if Luongo's got a C in a team photo then that really helps it look natural to me.
ReplyDeleteI think this a question that only Luongo could answer. Next time he's on after hours...
ReplyDeleteNow you guys have got me questioning my most recent jersey purchase... I got a 40th Anniversary jersey with #16 on it. All my other jerseys are blank, but I figured #16 was timeless and would never go out of style. What I didn't consider was that Trevor never actually wore the 40th Anniversary jersey. Is there a Linden Exemption Clause, or an Commemorative Jersey Loophole?? I need to know. It's a beautiful jersey, and I'd hate for it to be tainted by committing a jersey foul.
ReplyDelete@TheWellwoods I'm arguing that it's a pass, on the grounds that Linden's jersey is retired, and is therefore technically timeless. Ergo, you can put a 16 on any Canucks jersey.
ReplyDeleteOr something. Whatever. We need an official Jersey Foul rulebook.
Putting a retired number on a current jersey is one of those contentious issues for those concerned with jersey fouls. Personally, I would say there should be exemptions for retired numbers; as Harrison said, they're technically timeless.
ReplyDeleteThat said, you'll run into some people who argue that putting a player's name and number on a jersey they never wore is sacrilege. Those people take life too seriously and need to lighten up.
If, however, you put 16 on the back of a Canucks jersey along with your own name, then I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.
Here's another one: Steve Nash in the stands of the inaugural Whitecaps FC game, wearing a WC jersey, his last name and the number 13 on it... Jersey Foul? Owner's privilege? Hometown hero's pass?
ReplyDelete