• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

NHL November 2016 |OT| #MakeOilersGreatAgain.

B

bonesmccoy

Banned
The Canucks commentary team is terrible.

Edler checks a guy

Garrett: 'Edler with a nice hit and defensive play on Strome'

Any Canucks player is checked

Garrett: 'Another penalty goes uncalled'
 
Z

zroid

Banned
d951db072f7e4cf1aece2d0925948368.png


oh
 
I

iLLmAtlc

Member
bonesmccoy said:
The Canucks commentary team is terrible.

Edler checks a guy

Garrett: 'Edler with a nice hit and defensive on Strome'

Any Canucks players is checked

Garrett: 'Another penalty goes uncalled'
Click to expand...

Honestly if anyone has met a bigger Canucks fan than Garrett I'd be surprised
 
S

Socreges

Banned
Simon Belmont said:
Why does what I think matter? The crux of my argument is that the problem is that the NHL thinks that's a legal hit. Why are you harping on what I think? 28 out of 30 GMs say that's a legal hit, and they're the people who actually make the rules. I don't, you don't, so our opinions on whether it's legal are moot. The NHL said it is, so it is.

It's like you have this reflex blame the DoPS reaction that you can't seem to shake, regardless of what the reality is. The NHL has basically said that's a legal hit and you're still pushing this idea that secretly it isn't. I get that you're upset that your guy got hit but for the love of god direct your anger towards the right people.

You still haven't explained to me why you think DoPS is going to suspend a player for an infraction that according to big head Bob they are told explicitly isn't banned.
Click to expand...
You responded to me, and I've been cordial and avoiding loaded language unlike you. So please stop trying to poison the well and just focus on the conversation as I have. Or just move on.

Again, as I see it you're focusing on info that only follows if you and I agree on the premise underneath.

The NHL makes the rules, yes. Rule 48, in particular. Quoted above by me. In application of that rule, the DPoS made a decision against Raffi Torres. The subtlety of that decision is not in Rule 48. But it set a precedent. It demonstrated that there is (on occasion) necessarily a subjective interpretation of those rules as few incidents fall neatly into any black/white distinction. Torres' hit didn't as the initial point of contact was the shoulder but they nevertheless determined that the "principal" point of contact remained the head as it was a "glancing blow" on the shoulder. Now they haven't released an official explanation in this case, so far as I know, but reportedly they've said they don't believe that the head was the principal point of contact. And also that they didn't have sufficient angles to determine. That's a failing, in my mind. Not just of the rule, but the consistent application of it. Since they have already made such a subjective determination in the past, which seems to mirror this situation quite well, this was a poor judgment.

Honestly, how someone can see the hit and not see the HEAD as the principal (ie, most important - maybe 'takes the brunt of the hit' is the best way to understand it) point of contact just boggles the mind. The DoPS could have gotten this right. They could have passed the same judgment that they did on Torres (though less severe), stating that the head remained the principal point of contact despite the initial contact, and no one would have batted an eye (except Dopey maybe).

I suspect there's some affection for Kadri as he's a skilled player. He has a history, but he's no Torres. He's not simply a goon, he's a marketable NHL player with a bright future. Had Dorsett made that hit on Matthews, though, for example... I'm convinced we would have seen a very similar explanation to the one given on Torres-Stoll.
 
S

Simon Belmont

Banned
Socreges said:
You responded to me, and I've been cordial and avoiding loaded language unlike you. So please stop trying to poison the well and just focus on the conversation as I have. Or just move on.

Again, as I see it you're focusing on info that only follows if you and I agree on the premise underneath.

The NHL makes the rules, yes. Rule 48, in particular. Quoted above by me. In application of that rule, the DPoS made a decision against Raffi Torres. The subtlety of that decision is not in Rule 48. But it set a precedent. It demonstrated that there is (on occasion) necessarily a subjective interpretation of those rules as few incidents fall neatly into any black/white distinction. Torres' hit didn't as the initial point of contact was the shoulder but they nevertheless determined that the "principal" point of contact remained the head as it was a "glancing blow" on the shoulder. Now they haven't released an official explanation in this case, so far as I know, but reportedly they've said they don't believe that the head was the principal point of contact. And also that they didn't have sufficient angles to determine. That's a failing, in my mind. Not just of the rule, but the consistent application of it. Since they have already made such a subjective determination in the past, which seems to mirror this situation quite well, this was a poor judgment.

Honestly, how someone can see the hit and not see the HEAD as the principal (ie, most important - maybe 'takes the brunt of the hit' is the best way to understand it) point of contact just boggles the mind. The DoPS could have gotten this right. They could have passed the same judgment that they did on Torres (though less severe), stating that the head remained the principal point of contact despite the initial contact, and no one would have batted an eye (except Dopey maybe).

I suspect there's some affection for Kadri as he's a skilled player. He has a history, but he's no Torres. He's not simply a goon, he's a marketable NHL player with a bright future. Had Dorsett made that hit on Matthews, though, for example... I'm convinced we would have seen a very similar explanation to the one given on Torres-Stoll.
Click to expand...

A simple "no, I'm not going to try and explain why I think the DoPS would suspend a player for a hit the GMs actively tell them isn't suspendable in 2016" would suffice. Would have been a lot more succinct.

Honestly, Ferraro who lives in Vancouver and is a borderline homer says it was a legal hit. Just take the L and move on with your life.

This whole thing is stupid because we both agree that he should be suspended for it, but I and reality are of the opinion that the NHL considers that a legal hit, and you have the bizarre conviction that it secretly isn't.
 
S

Socreges

Banned
Simon Belmont said:
A simple "no, I'm not going to try and explain why I think the DoPS would suspend a player for a hit the GMs actively tell them isn't suspendable in 2016" would suffice. Would have been a lot more succinct.

Honestly, Ferraro who lives in Vancouver and is a borderline homer says it was a legal hit. Just take the L and move on with your life.

This whole thing is stupid because we both agree that he should be suspended for it, but I and reality are of the opinion that the NHL considers that a legal hit, and you have the bizarre conviction that it secretly isn't.
Click to expand...
Why can't you respond to what I'm actually saying? Why do you insist on just being patronizing and continuing to repeat the same points that I've already addressed?

To your point, again, "a hit". Describe what is particular about this hit, what removes all ambiguity about legality/illegality.
 
S

Simon Belmont

Banned
Socreges said:
Why can't you respond to what I'm actually saying? Why do you insist on just being patronizing and continuing to repeat the same points that I've already addressed?

To your point, again, "a hit". Describe what is particular about this hit, what removes all ambiguity about legality/illegality.
Click to expand...

Alright, continue to blame the DoPS, be shocked the next time this happens. Maybe when it's a different teams players you won't be so myopically focused on a hit that happened almost four years ago when there are much more recent precedents to go from. That was a CBA away, but if it makes you sleep better then sure.
 
S

Socreges

Banned
Simon Belmont said:
Alright, continue to blame the DoPS, be shocked the next time this happens. Maybe when it's a different teams players you won't be so myopically focused on a hit that happened almost four years ago when there are much more recent precedents to go from. That was a CBA away, but if it makes you sleep better then sure.
Click to expand...
No, it wasn't. That was this CBA...I'm pretty sure, but if it wasn't then for sure the comparison is moot.

And please, elucidate me with other examples. The Torres one is simply the closest illustration. More data is welcome. You're intent on making this about me and my bias and focus, but I've always railed against the NHL and DoPS when their decisions baffle me regardless of which teams are involved.

Red_Man said:
Doctor Strange is good shit
Click to expand...
You are ready for the Mighty Whitey thread. Enjoy.
 
S

Simon Belmont

Banned
Socreges said:
No, it wasn't. That was this CBA...I'm pretty sure, but if it wasn't then for sure the comparison is moot.

And please, elucidate me with other examples. The Torres one is simply the closest illustration. More data is welcome. You're intent on making this about me and my bias and focus, but I've always railed against the NHL and DoPS when their decisions baffle me regardless of which teams are involved.


You are ready for the Mighty Whitey thread. Enjoy.
Click to expand...

http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=923845

Complete with explanation from DoPS as to why it's legal. From last year.

Don't say I never do anything nice for you.

And you're right, same CBA. For some reason I thought it was 2013/14 that we lost half the season.
 
S

Socreges

Banned
Simon Belmont said:
http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=923845

Complete with explanation from DoPS as to why it's legal. From last year.

Don't say I never do anything nice for you.

And you're right, same CBA. For some reason I thought it was 2013/14 that we lost half the season.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I'm not sure he even touches Foligno's head, though, so I don't see the similarities. Anyhow, we can put it to bed. Until it inevitably comes back up on December 3 and we resume. 😐
 
S

Smiley90

Stop shitting on my team. Start shitting on my finger.
So the Canucks have lost 9 in a row, franchise record is 10.

Our next game is against the Rangers who have THIRTEEN players on their roster with more points than anyone on our team.

This is going to end well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

No Rest for the Wicked |OT| Sleep is for the week
|OT| Indie 3 4 5 6 7
338
20K
S0ULZB0URNE replied
Challenger Games (illang,second wave) closing
1
747
IAmRei replied
PS Blog: Starting in November, PlayStation Plus members will get three PS VR bonus games for no extra charge
News Business Deals 2
50
5K
IntentionalPun replied
Battlefield 2042 Briefing – What We Learned From The Open Beta
Opinion Game Dev
35
4K
REDRZA MWS replied
  • x2
  • Locked
Cyberpunk 2077 |OT| The Future Is Now
|OT| 97 98 99 100 101
5K
328K
EviLore replied
Top Bottom