itissteeltime wrote:Torts says mean things, fined $20,000.
Weber slams Zetterberg's head into the glass, fined $2,500.
Players have a better union.
Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf
itissteeltime wrote:Torts says mean things, fined $20,000.
Weber slams Zetterberg's head into the glass, fined $2,500.
pfim wrote:Intent to injure doesn't get any clearer than this.
penmyst wrote:I'm curious; Do any of you guys ever seriously consider giving up watching NHL hockey?
Apples to oranges. There's a CBAitissteeltime wrote:Torts says mean things, fined $20,000.
Weber slams Zetterberg's head into the glass, fined $2,500.
TheHammer24 wrote:André wrote:First time I saw the clip. Just a fine is a joke.
TheHammer24: You're ridiculous.
Really? I mean, when I saw it live I grimaced at the attempted punch, but when I saw he missed that, it was meh after that. I mean, you can't really hurt someone like that. I'm glad the league didn't alter the way the series would flow. I could live with a one-game suspension, but I think the "injury risk" is really over blown.
TheHammer24 wrote:André wrote:First time I saw the clip. Just a fine is a joke.
TheHammer24: You're ridiculous.
Really? I mean, when I saw it live I grimaced at the attempted punch, but when I saw he missed that, it was meh after that. I mean, you can't really hurt someone like that. I'm glad the league didn't alter the way the series would flow. I could live with a one-game suspension, but I think the "injury risk" is really over blown.
penmyst wrote:I'm curious; Do any of you guys ever seriously consider giving up watching NHL hockey?
itissteeltime wrote:Torts says mean things, fined $20,000.
Weber slams Zetterberg's head into the glass, fined $2,500.
penmyst wrote:Is this the NHL or the WWE? That was a pretty good turnbuckle slam.
I'm curious; Do any of you guys ever seriously consider giving up watching NHL hockey?
Everytime I watch things like this (a joke fine for what is essentially an assault and deserved a multi-game suspension) I think about it.
Last nite I was catching some of the other playoff series. Particularly the Boston/Washington game. There were 5 or 6 penalties by Bruins players throughout the OT. The announcers even tongue-in-cheek laughed about the glaring penalties "not being penalties" *guffaw* at this time of the game. As if it is entirely the norm, nay quite acceptable, that game circumstances and time of game can affect if a penalty is a penalty. That this line of thinking is just the "NHL way", and we all accept it. This mindset permeates every level of the machine, from players, to coaches, to management, to announcers, to commentators, to writers.
At one point in that game, a Bruin runs over the Caps goalie (some young guy call up) when he clearly could have avoided him. The ref stands there and looks right at it, NO CALL. Then a scrum breaks out. So the ref tosses a guy from each team in the box. A scrum that wouldn't have occurred if the ref would have made the original call mind you. So the very next possession, a Bruin comes rambling into the goal crease again "chasing a puck" the Caps goalie snapped up well before he (the Bruin) gets there....... so the Caps goalie puts his stick and glove up for the Bruin to run face-first into it. What does the ref do? Call the Caps goalie for a penalty. Sending him the message that if he thinks he's going to defend himself since the refs wont (rookie treatment, again totally normal mindset).... he thought wrong.
/shakes head. If I didn't want to watch the Pens so bad, I think I would just turn the NHL off and never go back.
penmyst wrote:Spoiler:
TheHammer24 wrote:I have said it time and time again -- we WANT referees to officiate to game circumstances. It is a good thing. It would really stink if they started calling tic-tak holdings with 40 seconds to go in regulation. They have to temper it a bit, but the "a-hold-in-the-first-is-a-hold-in-the-third" line of reasoning would make the game worse.
penmyst wrote:I'm curious; Do any of you guys ever seriously consider giving up watching NHL hockey?
bh wrote:TheHammer24 wrote:I have said it time and time again -- we WANT referees to officiate to game circumstances. It is a good thing. It would really stink if they started calling tic-tak holdings with 40 seconds to go in regulation. They have to temper it a bit, but the "a-hold-in-the-first-is-a-hold-in-the-third" line of reasoning would make the game worse.
No we do not want this, at least I don't.
As if it is entirely the norm, nay quite acceptable, that game circumstances and time of game can affect if a penalty is a penalty.
TheHammer24 wrote:I have said it time and time again -- we WANT referees to officiate to game circumstances. It is a good thing. It would really stink if they started calling tic-tak holdings with 40 seconds to go in regulation. They have to temper it a bit, but the "a-hold-in-the-first-is-a-hold-in-the-third" line of reasoning would make the game worse.
TheHammer24 wrote:I have said it time and time again -- we WANT referees to officiate to game circumstances. It is a good thing. It would really stink if they started calling tic-tak holdings with 40 seconds to go in regulation. They have to temper it a bit, but the "a-hold-in-the-first-is-a-hold-in-the-third" line of reasoning would make the game worse.
bh wrote:
Good post. This is what I was trying to get out in my earlier post. Sometimes I do feel like not watching anymore. I love hockey the sport, not hockey the spectacle. I understand that it is a physical full contact game (which is one of the reason I love the game), but the fights after every clean check, the random cheapshots, guys trying to hurt other guys... somewhere the sport itself is being lost. The game looks nothing like it did when I started watching.
I hate the NHL way. Other sports rules seem so much more concrete and more defined. In the NHL the rules change by the situation at the time. Everytime I read Kerry Fraser's column at TSN I shake my head.
Garage League.
TheHammer24 wrote:I agree with the latter two (make up calls), but I strongly disagree with the first. You are greatly underestimating the lack of objectiveness in hockey penalties and greatly inviting officials to determine the outcome of the game. Supporters of this method would invariably complaint that officials are controlling the outcome of the game as soon as their progressive idea was implemented. Trust me on this one.
TheHammer24 wrote:How is the Olympic game different? It's officiating by the same people. I'll say it again. You're greatly overestimating the degree to which the game can be called "objectively." Simply put, it's not as easy as "it's a penalty." It's not like offsides, and the cricumstances of the game require the referee to close the window of what they call a penalty.
TheHammer24 wrote:I said that every scrum would result in every play[er] getting throw[n] out other than the original two combatants under the third-man in rule.
novapen wrote:TheHammer24 wrote:I said that every scrum would result in every play[er] getting throw[n] out other than the original two combatants under the third-man in rule.
Good if it did - you'd see no more scrums, which are boring to watch and drag out the games. Watching NHLers playing hockey is entertaining; watching people standing around and shoving each other is not.
TheHammer24 wrote:novapen wrote:TheHammer24 wrote:I said that every scrum would result in every play[er] getting throw[n] out other than the original two combatants under the third-man in rule.
Good if it did - you'd see no more scrums, which are boring to watch and drag out the games. Watching NHLers playing hockey is entertaining; watching people standing around and shoving each other is not.
Sigh. Okay.
http://www.livesoccertv.com/
Users browsing this forum: Sigwolf and 3 guests