Kukla's Korner

Kukla's Korner Hockey

Video- Trapped And Bored

Flyers and Lightning played a period of “how to beat/avoid” the trap.

The video tells it all.

added 10:57pm, Video from the Versus broadcast can be watched below…

Filed in: NHL Teams, Philadelphia Flyers, Tampa Bay Lightning, | KK Hockey | Permalink
 

Comments

 1 2 >       Next »

pensfan29's avatar

I put the blame on the flyers. They have the puck, move it! Other teams have played the Lightning and they found ways to beat the 1-3-1. I hate the 1-3-1, but its not illegal! The Devils played the trap for years. You cant eliminate a defensive strategy. You can force a team to move with the puck though.

Posted by pensfan29 on 11/09/11 at 11:32 PM ET

Primis's avatar

Anyone who blames anyone but the Flyers here is a fool.

As pensfan29 points out, the 1-3-1 is not brand new, and it is in fact quite beatable.

What Philly did in the first period is a complete disgrace to the game.  And as my wife noted, they did it on a national telecast to boot.  MOVE THE $^#%^($*&(% PUCK!

So basically what we learned tonight is that the Flyers are:  a) overrated obviously, because they feel a 1-3-1 is beyond their ability to cope with, b) scared and a bunch of cowards, because they won’t even try, and c) lazy and take the path of least resistance.

Anyone who thought the Flyers were real contenders had to rethink after watching that first period,  I’m no fan of trapping, defensive play or the Lightning by my God, show some balls and some class, Philly.  Even more shameful that they did this on the road, because we all know darn well they’d never chance this tactic at home in front of their own fans.

For shame.

Posted by Primis on 11/09/11 at 11:47 PM ET

Primis's avatar

BTW, watching that video in full finally, Marc Crawford hating the NZT and wanting a rule change is all you need to know about why it should be allowed.  Crawford is wrong in life more than even Mike Milbury.

Posted by Primis on 11/09/11 at 11:52 PM ET

HockeyTownTodd's avatar

First we’ll get rid of all our best players that can succeed against the NZT, even if they like to party.
Then we’ll get the league to outlaw the NZT.

If the Flyer’s would have set up 1-3-1, I’m sure the Lightning would be happy to show them how ineffective it can be.

Posted by HockeyTownTodd on 11/10/11 at 01:05 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

It’s a good troll.  Both teams are at fault here.  Refs should have given unsportsmanlike penalties to both coaches.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/10/11 at 01:07 AM ET

JBytes's avatar

If the referee is forced to blow the play dead, assess a two minute delay of game penalty to the offensive team.  That will put a swift end to that nonsense.

Posted by JBytes on 11/10/11 at 01:08 AM ET

NickLidstrom's avatar

And what a great game this one turned into

Posted by NickLidstrom from a Higher Ground on 11/10/11 at 01:42 AM ET

Avatar

Anyone who blames anyone but the Flyers here is a fool.

As pensfan29 points out, the 1-3-1 is not brand new, and it is in fact quite beatable.

What Philly did in the first period is a complete disgrace to the game.  And as my wife noted, they did it on a national telecast to boot.  MOVE THE $^#%^($*&(% PUCK!

So basically what we learned tonight is that the Flyers are:  a) overrated obviously, because they feel a 1-3-1 is beyond their ability to cope with, b) scared and a bunch of cowards, because they won’t even try, and c) lazy and take the path of least resistance.

Anyone who thought the Flyers were real contenders had to rethink after watching that first period,  I’m no fan of trapping, defensive play or the Lightning by my God, show some balls and some class, Philly.  Even more shameful that they did this on the road, because we all know darn well they’d never chance this tactic at home in front of their own fans.

For shame.

Posted by Primis on 11/09/11 at 09:47 PM ET

So a team isnt a contender because of what they did for 20 seconds in a game? Great logic there.

Posted by LiteWork on 11/10/11 at 02:03 AM ET

HockeytownOverhaul's avatar

I still hate the Ducks more and I’m sure in some way this is Katy Perry’s fault

Posted by HockeytownOverhaul on 11/10/11 at 02:40 AM ET

wingsfanindenver's avatar

Watching this kind of non-sense isn’t good for hockey’s image, but unlike Millbury and The Douche Canoe, I don’t put this on the Bolts. Guy Boucher (sp?) is doing the best he can with the talent available to him. The Bolt’s defensive corps is beat up and the 1-3-1 is a good system for a coach to use under those circumstances.  As of today it is not against any rules in hockey. Any coach that would not avail himself to any strategy which he feels gives his team a chance to win is a damned fool, and probably not likely to last out the season.

I loved the comment the Douche Canoe made in the 2nd “Edzo, if you were the star player for the Lightning would you go along with this?” WTF planet is he from thinking that a player gets to determine team strategy?

Milbury, as usual showed his complete and utter lack of understanding of the game during the intermission when he suggested that league enforce a man-to-man coverage scheme.

If anyone from VS is reading this; please, for the sake of all that is good and righteous, fire Pierre McGuire and Mike Milbury. Sooner is better than later. Kthanksbye

Posted by wingsfanindenver on 11/10/11 at 03:13 AM ET

Guilherme's avatar

On unrelated news, the MLB is forcing batters to start swinging in the air when pitchers don’t throw for more than two minutes.

On more unrelated news, the NFL and NBA are now penalizing the defense whenever a team lets the play clock goes to zero.

Posted by Guilherme from Brazsil on 11/10/11 at 07:14 AM ET

Guilherme's avatar

Go to zero. Whatever.

Posted by Guilherme from Brazsil on 11/10/11 at 07:14 AM ET

Primis's avatar

So a team isnt a contender because of what they did for 20 seconds in a game? Great logic there.

Posted by LiteWork on 11/10/11 at 12:03 AM ET

That video clip was merely an example.

They did that the entire first period, and tried it for some of the 2nd as well.  Do you really think that this was brought up because of one specific play of a few seconds in one period?  For several times in the 1st, Pronger alone had the puck back there for a good 30-45 seconds.

I had to laugh in the 2nd period PHI tried this still and when they finally tried to move the puck out, it resulted in a turnover at the blue line and TB held pressure in the PHI zone for a good minute afterwards and got a scoring chance.

After that, PHI abandoned the idea entirely.

Posted by Primis on 11/10/11 at 08:54 AM ET

Hank1974's avatar

This is exactly the reason why I barely watch hockey anymore.
I know that it’s only one team going to this extreme, but I guarantee if the Lightning go back to the conference finals, more teams will follow.

I don’t blame Guy Boucher. He’s trying to keep a job in the best league in the world that pays him millions of dollars.
I blame the NHL.

The league has absolutely no vision about what entertainment should look like.

Say what you want about the 80’s (it’s slower, not as talented, blah, blah, blah), but you never would have seen this then. Every game was ENTERTAINING!
The NHL of today cannot say that. There are far more boring games than exciting ones.

I hope the NHL loses another season next year. It seems that’s the only way to get the dinosaurs that run this league to make unique changes in order to make the game entertaining to watch.

Posted by Hank1974 on 11/10/11 at 10:14 AM ET

Evilpens's avatar

I don’t know how you can outlaw the NZT BUT if they could find a way I would be all for it !!Flyers organIzation is a Joke from the top down so what would you expect

Posted by Evilpens on 11/10/11 at 10:45 AM ET

Avatar

Not sure if all the support here is because this is a Steve Y team or not, but as a penguins fan who hates the flyers more than any other team… i think the flyers are in the right here.  This is in Tampa.  If the “genius” Guy B wants to implement a trap then the flyers should be allowed to implement a stall. 

By holding the puck the flyers were trying to force the bolts out of their 1-3-1… why is that a bad thing? 

Steve Y and Guy B are going to eliminate the few fans they have if they continue to implement the 1-3-1 at home… especially if the visiting team just sits back and does what the flyers did here (legal by the way).

Posted by gretzky_to_lemieux on 11/10/11 at 11:25 AM ET

Avatar

Entering the game the Flyers were the highest-scoring team in the league, just put up 9 on Columbus, have a sharp enough goaltender who can win a game if his team scores two goals, averaged 30.5 shots per game, and were going up against a Lightning team that is not playing its best and was without 2 of its top 3 defensemen and one of their grinders in Ryan Malone.

And Laviolette chooses this time to put out a statement against a 1-3-1? Flyers had 15 shots on goal, one goal scored on the power play with a deflection, and couldn’t run over a Lightning team that has yet to hit its stride.

Call Toronto, get this guy in the Hall of Fame…

Posted by tj77 from USA on 11/10/11 at 11:28 AM ET

Avatar

And Laviolette chooses this time to put out a statement against a 1-3-1?

Only 1 team plays the 1-3-1 and the flyers only play this team 4 times a year.  What other time should they have “made a statement”. 

If anything, it was “the genius” who was making the statement… trying to implement the most boring system alive… the 1-3-1 trap, at home.

Posted by gretzky_to_lemieux on 11/10/11 at 11:33 AM ET

bezukov's avatar

What Philly did in the first period is a complete disgrace to the game. 

Fixed

Philly has always represented the lowest common denominator in the NHL.  Whenever teams are racing to the bottom, I expect to see them and Anaheim leading the pack. 

If the referee is forced to blow the play dead, assess a two minute delay of game penalty to the offensive team.  That will put a swift end to that nonsense.

Posted by JBytes on 11/09/11 at 11:08 PM ET

I agree.  Its already hard enough to play defense in this league without getting penalized for something stupid.  Now we are going to penalize a team for their defensive formation?  Are we playing hockey or football?  The trap may not be the most exciting thing to watch, but that shouldn’t make it illegal.

In a league where the referees don’t even allow the smallest amount of hooking or obstruction by the defensive team, there isn’t a single reason why employing dump and chase with a little hard skating can’t beat the 1-3-1.  A delay of game penalty on Philly for that crap would clear it up fast.

Posted by bezukov from the kids are alright. on 11/10/11 at 11:41 AM ET

Hank1974's avatar

If anything, it was “the genius” who was making the statement… trying to implement the most boring system alive… the 1-3-1 trap, at home.

The Montreal Canadiens object!
Remember when they played the ultra-exciting 0-5-0 against the Wings 4 years ago?

Ahh, what a great time to be an NHL fan!

But isn’t this up the average NHL fans alley? Haven’t we heard time and time again that a good poke check is as exciting as an Ovi end-to-end rush?
I’d much rather be discussing the intricacies of the 1-3-1 than talking about how 91 points will earn you the Art Ross.

What fun!!!

Posted by Hank1974 on 11/10/11 at 11:41 AM ET

phillyd's avatar

I’m a Flyers fan, but I"m with g2l on this only because I see this same thing in soccer. What the Flyers did was basically try to get the Lightning out of their game. What the Lightning did was implement their game and try to force the Flyers to come to them and make mistakes. You had two coaches implementing systems to try and subvert the others. If anything, I’m glad to see both teams play their coaches’ system with the discipline they did, it shows they are well coached teams. I think the bigger thing is we don’t see “strategy” like this played out too much in the NHL to this extent/extreme.

Posted by phillyd from Southern New Jersey on 11/10/11 at 11:41 AM ET

Avatar

Only 1 team plays the 1-3-1 and the flyers only play this team 4 times a year.  What other time should they have “made a statement”.

If anything, it was “the genius” who was making the statement… trying to implement the most boring system alive… the 1-3-1 trap, at home.

Make a statement by using your vastly talented players to beat the system and score a pile of goals on a team that has allowed plenty this season. Coaches are hired to win games, not sit with a thumb up their arse pouting about another team’s system.

And enough about Guy B and Stevie Y “eliminating” the “few” fans in Tampa. If the Penguins learned to eliminate the Lightning when up 3-1 in a best-of-seven series Boucher’s system wouldn’t have taken the team to the ECF where an even more boring trapping team beat them and went on to win the Cup.

Posted by tj77 from USA on 11/10/11 at 11:54 AM ET

bezukov's avatar

I think the bigger thing is we don’t see “strategy” like this played out too much in the NHL to this extent/extreme.

Posted by phillyd from New Jersey on 11/10/11 at 09:41 AM ET

I disagree phillyd.  Forcing the referee to blow the whistle isn’t a strategy to beat the 1-3-1.  Its refusing to play.

Posted by bezukov from the kids are alright. on 11/10/11 at 12:01 PM ET

phillyd's avatar

Nobody forced the referees to do that. That was done by them for no reason. Find me the rule that says a team must “move the puck forward” because all I can see in rule 63 is you can’t delay the game by not moving the puck. What I saw last night was passes back and forth between the Flyers D without the Lightning making any attempt to disrupt those passes.

Again, I’m going to go back to soccer because I enjoy watching that sport as well. Lots of times you see lesser talented teams play “10 on their half” which basically means all field players are behind the ball, similar to the 1-3-1/trap/etc. Teams to thwart that will pass the ball back and forth between the D-men with some probing passes to those in the midfield positions with the goal of trying to draw the other team out of position slightly where a quick pass can spring an offensive opportunity. That’s what the Flyers were doing, except Tampa was disciplined enough to not bite.

Posted by phillyd from Southern New Jersey on 11/10/11 at 12:15 PM ET

Avatar

Make a statement by using your vastly talented players to beat the system and score a pile of goals on a team that has allowed plenty this season

How is having a team with Stamkos, St. Louis, and Vin.L. far less superior to a team like the flyers?

Posted by gretzky_to_lemieux on 11/10/11 at 12:23 PM ET

Nathan's avatar

I think most teams play a 1-3-1—maybe only one or two teams play it exclusively for almost the entirety of every game, but almost every team utilizes the 1-3-1 for stretches in most games.

I don’t get what the big deal is on either side. Tampa has a depleted defense and was playing a team that has been scoring in buckets this year. It would be stupid not to (forget 1-3-1 specifically) play with a passive defensive strategy. The injured D needs help. On the Philly side, they had the puck, so they can do what they want with it. It’s a little silly to me to do this in a 0-0 game, but if anyone has a problem with this, go take the puck away. If Philly had gone D-to-D repeatedly, but were still essentially stalling, we wouldn’t be talking about this.

This is something dumb that happened, and will happen again, but isn’t worth worrying about.

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 11/10/11 at 12:25 PM ET

bezukov's avatar

all I can see in rule 63 is you can’t delay the game by not moving the puck.

We could split hairs over what “moving the puck” means, but you’ll need a different sparring partner for that exercise. 

Did you watch the second clip?  Philly’s d-man stood in the same spot with the puck for 28 seconds.  What would you call that?  That isn’t making passes to draw defenders out of position (which in hockey, usually isn’t done in your own end). 

I do see and understand the analogy you’re drawing, but I don’t find many parallels between soccer and hockey.  Their only similar in my mind if you’re comparing the two from the viewpoint of a baseball/football/basketball fan.  Maybe if soccer had fewer players on a smaller pitch and static lines for offsides there would be more room for comparison.  The main thing I would point to is:  soccer pitches don’t have end boards, so you can’t really dump and chase.  What was stopping the Flyers?

Posted by bezukov from the kids are alright. on 11/10/11 at 12:33 PM ET

Avatar

I think most teams play a 1-3-1—maybe only one or two teams play it exclusively for almost the entirety of every game, but almost every team utilizes the 1-3-1 for stretches in most games.

no

Posted by gretzky_to_lemieux on 11/10/11 at 12:44 PM ET

phillyd's avatar

You need to watch soccer more then, there are many parallels. I’ve played goalie in both and the seeing of things and strategy on the offensive and defensive side are similar. Sure, things like end boards and lines are different, but underlying things like possession, counter-attack, overloads, etc., are very, very similar.

As for dumping off the board, did you see where the outside players of the “3” were playing? Anything off those boards is a high risk/low reward pass as it is probably going to be batted down. The one thing the Flyers should have done is have their forwards on a cycle or the entire team on a 5 player cycle, doing the probing passes, kinda like some teams use to gear up their power play before rushing into the zone.

Someone made a comment similar on the philly.com article talking about Pronger’s comments regarding the 1-3-1 but I’m going to go with their idea and expand on it. Would you be willing to implement a rule that states if no players on the opposing team are in your defensive zone, any play of the puck in a normal icing circumstance then it will not be called icing? So in this case the Flyers’ forwards could circle back and the D could slam the puck past the “3” into Tampa’s defensive zone without worrying about icing. With the rules and enforcement on obstruction, you know those forwards won’t be held up physically to get to the puck.

Posted by phillyd from Southern New Jersey on 11/10/11 at 12:52 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

I don’t think we need to implement a new rule so much as make sure the linesmen are doing their jobs correctly following the existing one:

The Linesman shall have discretion to wave off apparent icing infractions on attempted passes if those passes are deemed receivable (attainable). In order for the Linesman to wash out the icing for this reason, the receiving player’s stick must be on the attacking side of the center red line and he must be eligible to receive the pass (e.g. he cannot be in an off-side position and cannot be involved in a player change that would result in a too many men on the ice penalty if he were to play the puck).

Go ahead and blast the puck from your own defensive zone down ice, just blast it in such a way as to at least try to get it on the stick of your teammate cutting through the other side of the neutral zone.

If the defensemen get sticks on those passes and play goes the other way on an odd-man rush, then the trap has done precisely what it was designed to do.

If you’re worried about players batting down those passes, get better at the Murphy Dump.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/10/11 at 01:00 PM ET

Hank1974's avatar

Someone made a comment similar on the philly.com article talking about
Pronger’s comments regarding the 1-3-1 but I’m going to go with their idea
and expand on it. Would you be willing to implement a rule that states if no
players on the opposing team are in your defensive zone, any play of the
puck in a normal icing circumstance then it will not be called icing? So in
this case the Flyers’ forwards could circle back and the D could slam the
puck past the “3” into Tampa’s defensive zone without worrying about
icing. With the rules and enforcement on obstruction, you know those
forwards won’t be held up physically to get to the puck.

That sounds very close to what Bowman wanted to do.
But in his scenario, they paint a very thin line across the top of the circles. If the defensive team crosses that line, they can hammer the puck all the way down the ice without icing or offsides.
It forces the attacking team to get at the dmen before they cross the line.

I don’t know if that would make things better or worse, but without trying to sound like a broken record, why aren’t these ideas looked at in the R&D camp and especially in preseason games?

Posted by Hank1974 on 11/10/11 at 01:11 PM ET

phillyd's avatar

JJ, you’re missing my argument. It’s not passing to the players in the neutral zone, it’s an elongated dump and chase from the defensive zone. Icing was put in place to penalize teams for just throwing the puck down the ice to avoid being pressured in their defensive zone. That wouldn’t be the case in my proposed change. No one is pressuring the D as there are no players from the opposing team in their zone, therefore, “icing” by its definition should be allowed.

Posted by phillyd from Southern New Jersey on 11/10/11 at 01:13 PM ET

Hippy Dave's avatar

This is pretty hilarious stuff.  Good times!

Posted by Hippy Dave from Portland by way of Detroit on 11/10/11 at 01:15 PM ET

Avatar

How is having a team with Stamkos, St. Louis, and Vin.L. far less superior to a team like the flyers?

Where did I say “far less superior”? My point is the Flyers are an offensively talented team from top to bottom, very deep, able to score lots of goals, able to put lots of shots on net, and they have a goaltender who most of the time stops the puck. Tampa was missing 2 of their top 3 defensemen, one of their productive forwards, and have been anything but consistent and have had to rally from 2 and 3 goals down, respectively, in their previous two wins. THE FLYERS SHOULD HAVE RAMMED THE PUCK DOWN THE LIGHTNING’S THROAT. They could have easily put 4 or 5 goals on this team, others have done it quite often this season.

Instead Laviolette puts on this little circus, and in the end the Lightning didn’t break from their system and won the game. Say what you will about Boucher and 1-3-1, but Laviolette’s little systemic temper tantrum cost his team a point in the standings and the game. He’s paid to win games and to beat other teams at their game, not to do this sort of “protest”.

Posted by tj77 from USA on 11/10/11 at 01:25 PM ET

phillyd's avatar

Hank, I completely forgot about that suggestion from Bowman and you’re right, this is something that should be looked at in the R&D and/or preseason games.

Posted by phillyd from Southern New Jersey on 11/10/11 at 01:27 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

I got the point, I just disagree that it would be a good solution.

If you want to dump the puck all the way down ice, I want you to at least make it look like you’re making a concerted effort to get it to a player in the neutral zone.  You see it a few times a game where a team will blast a slapshot from their own end where a player standing at the red line will tip it in to avoid the icing.  This is mostly done to help facilitate line changes, but it’s something that could be used to help create the speed through center that teams need to gain to defeat the trap.

You’re not actually making a pass to a player to control in the neutral zone, you’re making a player tip it in as part of creating offense.

It just seems like it would be creating another rule that doesn’t need to be created. Hell, it could be argued that the 1-3-1 defense makes it just about impossible to punch the puck through center ice all the way to the other end without it going through at least one player who the linesman could argue had an opportunity to touch it and therefore negate the icing.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/10/11 at 01:27 PM ET

bezukov's avatar

Posted by phillyd from New Jersey on 11/10/11 at 10:52 AM ET

I’m running out of wherewithal to continue this discussion on a very serious note, so I’m tapping out after this one.  You’re analogies make enough sense to be honest, but they don’t persuade.  Philly was tacitly admitting that they weren’t willing to work hard enough to beat the 1-3-1, so to me the rest is just sour grapes.  Hopefully Tampa stocked the away locker room with some Johnson & Johnson’s “No More Tears” shampoo before the game. 

If the Flyers really wanted to draw one of the Bolts out of position they could have at least advanced the puck to their own blue line and made a pass back to give themselves a chance for an outlet pass.  Or you know, they could have grown a pair and skated, or dumped the puck.  Sure dump and chase is low percentage game, but thats life and thats hockey.  Get the puck deep, forecheck hard, and capitalize on your chances.  Its real simple.

Standing at the face off dot like that is tantamount to being a sore loser.  Its like saying: “If you can’t beat em, quit.”  Hockey is a two way game.  Philly can play the trap too if they want to give Tampa a taste of their own medicine. 

I know you want to justify Philly’s strategy and I am understanding to a point.  But if the Flyers want to make a statement about the trap, there is a Board of Governor’s meeting this month.  During a game is not the proper forum.  Doing that on the ice is cowardly and weak, I’m just not going to buy strategy based excuses for it.

Posted by bezukov from the kids are alright. on 11/10/11 at 01:30 PM ET

Hank1974's avatar

Ignore the union aspect and tradition, but I wonder if any of these issues would arise if the NHL went to 4-on-4 full time.

There’s simply not enough room out there. It makes the trap way too effective.

On a side note, I’m tired of coaches being labeled as geniuses when they come up with some boring defensive strategy.

I’m waiting for one of these Stephen Hawkings to come up with an offensive strategy that tears down any and all traps.
THEN you could truly label someone a genius.

Posted by Hank1974 on 11/10/11 at 01:33 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

I know that it’s more cost-effective to simply take a player off the ice for each team, but I’d rather go to international-sized ice than to 4-on-4 full-time.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/10/11 at 01:38 PM ET

Hank1974's avatar

During a game is not the proper forum.  Doing that on the ice is cowardly and weak, I’m just not going to buy strategy based excuses for it.

I know where you’re coming from.
But as an NHL fan that wants to see change, I thought it was a perfect time to make a statement.

The NHL, it’s executives, governors, GM’s, etc. don’t give a crap.
The only time they do is if it hurts their wallet.

So seeing this travesty on a nationally aired game, and just after NBC plunks down $2B to broadcast it, I thought it was awesome timing!

It’s set the hockey world on it’s ear. The NHL is forced to address it in some capacity.
I think we all know they won’t do a freakin’ thing about it outside of a some lip-service.
The only time the NHL does anything meaningful to help it’s game is when something terrible occurs; ie lockout, death on the ice, superstar out with concussion.

So we all know the NHL would have continued status-quo allowing this kind of boring hockey.
Hopefully this game set some things in motion.

Posted by Hank1974 on 11/10/11 at 01:41 PM ET

 1 2 >       Next »

Add a Comment

Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.

Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.

Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.

Smileys

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Feed

Most Recent Blog Posts

About Kukla's Korner Hockey

Paul Kukla founded Kukla’s Korner in 2005 and the site has since become the must-read site on the ‘net for all the latest happenings around the NHL.

From breaking news to in-depth stories around the league, KK Hockey is updated with fresh stories all day long and will bring you the latest news as quickly as possible.

Email Paul anytime at pk@kuklaskorner.com