Advertisements

Forums Forums Sports Media Discussion Daily Discussion Threads 5/13 – 5/19/19 Weekly Thread

This topic contains 190 replies, has 29 voices, and was last updated by  Humphrey 1 month, 4 weeks ago.

Viewing 25 posts - 126 through 150 (of 191 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #139342

    Lefty
    Moderator

    Wait until they start Collins at Tight End.

    Heads will explose all over media row.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #139343

    BrianInLA
    Participant

    Not that I’m unhappy but the Blues certainly got hosed.

    #139344

    Yahtzee
    Participant

    Bill said that when he brought Chung back they were going to use him differently then they did the first time. Said it was his fault for not setting Chung up to succeed by asking him to do things that weren’t his strong suit. Now he does the things he’s good at and helps the team. Mindroasting.

    There’s that institutional arrogance again. They never make a mistake much less admit one.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #139345

    BrianInLA
    Participant

    They just said that this particular play (hand pass) is not reviewable if the 4 refs on the ice didn’t see the hand pass even if the folks back in Toronto see a hand pass when they go to replay. That’s right out of NFL logic. :blink:

     

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #139346

    Feejis
    Participant

    They just said that this particular play (hand pass) is not reviewable if the 4 refs on the ice didn’t see the hand pass even if the folks back in Toronto see a hand pass when they go to replay. That’s right out of NFL logic. :blink:

    Similar to what happened to the Bruins when the puck hit the netting in Columbus and none of the officials managed to see it but it couldn’t be challenged.

    #139347

    Laszlo Panaflex
    Participant

    The NHL really has to take another look at what is and what is not reviewable. It’s embarrassing.  Why can a coach go back and challenge a goal because the player was 1/2 inch offsides 2 minutes before a goal was scored but you can’t challenge an obvious hand pass that lead to the game winning goal in OT of the Western Conference finals.

    6 users thanked author for this post.
    #139348

    Lefty
    Moderator

    It shouldn’t even have to be a challenge.   The refs should have the latitude to go look at something at their own discretion if they think they missed something.   My sense last night was that there was no way the ref below the net missed the hand pass, but he hesitated and, oh shit, the puck was in the net and he froze.   I think if he had the latitude to go review it on his own (sort of like the NBA does) he would have saved face and flipped the call.

     

     

    #139349

    Feejis
    Participant

    It shouldn’t even have to be a challenge. The refs should have the latitude to go look at something at their own discretion if they think they missed something. My sense last night was that there was no way the ref below the net missed the hand pass, but he hesitated and, oh shit, the puck was in the net and he froze. I think if he had the latitude to go review it on his own (sort of like the NBA does) he would have saved face and flipped the call.

    They can’t review it (which is dumb) but they can discuss it and make the call after that. So I’m guessing he didn’t actually see it because he’d have used the discussion to say it was ruled a hand pass.

    #139350

    Lebron
    Participant

    In Game 7 of the Avalanche-Sharks series the Avalanche scored what appeared to be then tying goal, went to review and during a change Landeskog’s skate was either on or a pubic hair over the line just as he was stepping through the door/onto the bench.  Goal is waived off.  If he was eligible to called offside, why wouldn’t they then have assessed a too many men penalty?  Is that a review thing as well where they can’t assess a penalty on a review, just make the offside call?

    #139351

    Feejis
    Participant

    In Game 7 of the Avalanche-Sharks series the Avalanche scored what appeared to be then tying goal, went to review and during a change Landeskog’s skate was either on or a pubic hair over the line just as he was stepping through the door/onto the bench. Goal is waived off. If he was eligible to called offside, why wouldn’t they then have assessed a too many men penalty? Is that a review thing as well where they can’t assess a penalty on a review, just make the offside call?

    Yes and I don’t think applicable anyhow. They give a lot of latitude on shift changes because otherwise everyone would need to be in the bench door before new guys jumped on. And it was away from the play.

    No real latitude on offsides though.

     

    #139352

    Lebron
    Participant

    In an official statement, the NHL said: “Plays of this nature are not reviewable. A hand pass that goes into the net can be reviewed, but a hand pass between teammates cannot be reviewed.”

    Only reviewable if it goes in the net.  It’s still illegal, but only reviewable in certain circumstances.  It’s right there for all to see, but nope, not gonna look at it.  I can’t, the process says so.  I hate when people pull a ‘you can’t let the process run you, you need to run the process’ when people are trying to evade something they don’t like, but this is a good example of letting the process run the people and eliminating common sense.

    #139353

    Feejis
    Participant

    In an official statement, the NHL said: “Plays of this nature are not reviewable. A hand pass that goes into the net can be reviewed, but a hand pass between teammates cannot be reviewed.”

    Only reviewable if it goes in the net. It’s still illegal, but only reviewable in certain circumstances. It’s right there for all to see, but nope, not gonna look at it. I can’t, the process says so. I hate when people pull a ‘you can’t let the process run you, you need to run the process’ when people are trying to evade something they don’t like, but this is a good example of letting the process run the people and eliminating common sense.

    Uh, it’s not a pass if it goes into the net. It’s a shot.

    3 users thanked author for this post.
    #139354

    jforb
    Participant
    #139355

    NASCL
    Participant

    I was waiting for a chicken to run by.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #139357

    Lebron
    Participant

    In an official statement, the NHL said: “Plays of this nature are not reviewable. A hand pass that goes into the net can be reviewed, but a hand pass between teammates cannot be reviewed.”

    Only reviewable if it goes in the net. It’s still illegal, but only reviewable in certain circumstances. It’s right there for all to see, but nope, not gonna look at it. I can’t, the process says so. I hate when people pull a ‘you can’t let the process run you, you need to run the process’ when people are trying to evade something they don’t like, but this is a good example of letting the process run the people and eliminating common sense.

    Uh, it’s not a pass if it goes into the net. It’s a shot.

    That’s a technicality!/Reimer

    #139358

    Lebron
    Participant

    6 game vacation for Patrick Peterson.  Must be more serious than the usual.

    #139359

    stabbed by foulke
    Participant

    6 game vacation for Patrick Peterson. Must be more serious than the usual.

    Dropped his appeal and ended the rhetoric so it was reduced from 8 to 6.

    #139360

    Canadian Soldier
    Participant

    :blink:

    :blink:   Whoa. What an anjerk. And the shot from inside the can. That’s sort of a reverse Fatty.

     

    #139361

    Hacksaw
    Participant

    :blink:


    What company would trust him working from home? As someone who works from home in my house its a tight ship always clean and the kid is in school before 7:30. If the connection is down Im pretty much letting everyone know contact me via cellphone. You can get me for going to Chipotle 10 minutes longer than I should or going to the gym other than that work has to get done.

    Also currently we have a member of our staff that has can work from home a couple days a week, we gave them something new to their workload. They pushed back and said “Its tough to prioritize the new task…. (then some political backtalk)” our boss replies, “Ok you will have to work in the office until you can prioritize this item in your workload.”

    The staff member figured it out quick.

    2 users thanked author for this post.
    #139362

    Yahtzee
    Participant

    I wouldn’t trust me to work at home.  Judge Judy and Price is Right on in the background, naps, snack breaks.

    Had one snow day this year and it was a train wreck.

    • This reply was modified 2 months ago by  Yahtzee.
    #139364

    jforb
    Participant

    We more or less went all remote a couple years ago. Fortunately they need a space for paperwork and stuff, so there’s a single office rented that I use. Work from home during snowstorms and I end up doing 4 hours work over 12 hours.

    #139365

    Coma
    Participant

    :blink:

    What company would trust him working from home? As someone who works from home in my house its a tight ship always clean and the kid is in school before 7:30. If the connection is down Im pretty much letting everyone know contact me via cellphone. You can get me for going to Chipotle 10 minutes longer than I should or going to the gym other than that work has to get done.

    Also currently we have a member of our staff that has can work from home a couple days a week, we gave them something new to their workload. They pushed back and said “Its tough to prioritize the new task…. (then some political backtalk)” our boss replies, “Ok you will have to work in the office until you can prioritize this item in your workload.”

    The staff member figured it out quick.

    I know Joe is trying to be funny, but taking out the trash, washing dishes, or getting your child ready for school are all things that would need to get done whether you go into the office or work from home. Making a video about the difficulties of working from home is definitely an “optional” type of activity, though.

    4 users thanked author for this post.
    #139366

    Coma
    Participant

    6 game vacation for Patrick Peterson. Must be more serious than the usual.

    A deflategate truther who was actually cheating? Color me shocked.

    3 users thanked author for this post.
    #139368

    Humphrey
    Participant

    This wasn’t a bad article about Jackie TC: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-new-yorker-interview/jackie-macmullan-is-the-great-chronicler-of-basketballs-golden-age

    Wonder if 02062 has any take on the local sportswriter she’s talking about? Met him once or twice (his correct first name was Frank) but that’s about the extent of my knowledge of him; that and his brother was a high school coach and a real prick.

    (edit- hope I wasn’t too hard on ol’ Pete, had a great record and his picture was next to “old school baseball guy” in the dictionary)

    #139369

    02062
    Participant

    This wasn’t a bad article about Jackie TC: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-new-yorker-interview/jackie-macmullan-is-the-great-chronicler-of-basketballs-golden-age

    Wonder if 02062 has any take on the local sportswriter she’s talking about? Met him once or twice (his correct first name was Frank) but that’s about the extent of my knowledge of him; that and his brother was a high school coach and a real prick.

    :ph34r:

Viewing 25 posts - 126 through 150 (of 191 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Skip to toolbar