| 0 |
Subject: Suggestion: New Rule Regarding Major Penalties
Posted by: The Left Wings
- [760719] Mon, May 06, 2002, 20:40
If a player gets called a major penalty and a game misconduct for boarding, high-sticking or whatever because somebody was injured in the play, the injured player should not be allowed to be back playing in that game either. If the head coach wants that player back, his team will have to kill a delay-of-game penalty in order to have the so-called injured player back on the ice.
No more faking, diving, or towel on mouth when there was no blood whatsoever. |
| Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well. |
| 43 | Cuz
ID: 213301420
Sat, May 11, 2002, 02:23
|
And I don't see why - if a major or match penalty is called - that the player who is checked should have to sit. Doesn't make any sense.
|
| 44 | JayTDawg
ID: 292471016
Sat, May 11, 2002, 02:28
|
The whole point of Cuz's example was that a match penalty had been called after the goon checked the star. It sort of goes without saying since the whole argument is about match penalties -- why would he post an example without a match penalty?
|
| 45 | The Left Wings
ID: 760719
Sat, May 11, 2002, 09:15
|
You see, Cuz, the problem right now is that people faking injuries so that they can get somebody ejected from the game. If the victims can get back into the game whenever they want to, like they do right now, you'll continue to see all the dives. They just fall down in a spectacular way, and twitch on the ice as if they were in excruciating pain. Then after a major penalty is called, they jump right up and participate in the major penalty, which was called only because they were supposed to be seriously injured.
My point is that if the victim can get right up and play right away, then it shouldn't have been a major penalty. If it's a major penalty, then the victim has to be injured severely enough, measured by sitting out at least a set amount of time.
|
| 46 | Wild Vikings
ID: 26210202
Sat, May 11, 2002, 11:35
|
I agree, I dont think I have seen too many match penalties issued where the player has return that game, let alone that period.
|
| 47 | kev
ID: 15357192
Sat, May 11, 2002, 14:27
|
Why shouldnt it be a major penalty. If you use your stick in a stupid way (Get it in a persons face), or you board a guy (hitting from behind is about as idiotic as getting your stick up), you should get a penalty. Its not the actual fact of injury. I do believe the term is "attempt to injure". The injury doesnt have to happen. The attempt of it is what they look at. A high stick, a 2 handed slash, or boarding- those are all not attempts at getting a player off the puck- thats attempting to injure him. The severity of the injury is just not a good way to base the time of the penalty. If you have been run into the boards, you would know you stay down. You dont wanna move at first until you know everything is okay. You might get up, and be a bit sore, but you can still play. I dont think the fact a player is cautious, and stays down to make sure he isnt injured severly, he should be punished.
Like I said, it's like you want to punish the victim, and his team, and not the guy performing the infraction.
|
| 48 | Wild Vikings
ID: 26210202
Sat, May 11, 2002, 15:18
|
The severity of an injury never plays into the length of a penalty or what type of penalty it is.
However, the perception of the severity of the injury does affect the call being made as it should be.
I dont know how people can argue against this,,,it is there for the protection of the players. Without this mentality, Marty McSorley would have gotten a double minor for high sticking on Brashear. Cause after all it was technically a high stick that caused injury.
That check on Zednick.. that was an elbowing penalty nothing more.
If we dont take into consideration the violence and damage caused by the player when breaking the rules we would never have a match penalty issued.
Someone name me ONE player that has returned during a game after someone was issued a match penalty against him. Just name one...and if you can actually think of one, then try to name two. Having a player sit out after drawing a match penalty is a mute point cause most match penalties issued are serious injuries.
I think the rule should be there to show the leagues opinion towards diving. It is like making a statement. They should also become much more strict regarding the calling of diving.
When a guy gets hit, goes down. Stays down then looks up for a penalty.... lays there for a second and jumps up when one isnt called. Hit him with a diving call, and who cares if it is double overtime of game 7 in the Stanley Cup Finals. Nail him so he doesnt do it again.
|
| 49 | kev
ID: 15357192
Sat, May 11, 2002, 15:51
|
Actually, the hit on Zednik was more than an Elbowing penalty...thats why the guy got suspended...it's that simple. I think the ref's perception, and leagues perception is better than a fans
|
| 50 | kev
ID: 15357192
Sat, May 11, 2002, 15:57
|
There is a difference in a dive, and staying down. If you get touched, and fall to the ice like your dead, thats a dive. If you get elbowed, and you go down, and stay down- thats not a dive. Thats staying down.
I dont know why we are even arguing this. The rule will never be changed, and thats a good thing
|
| 51 | kev
ID: 15357192
Sat, May 11, 2002, 16:04
|
Sorry for the triple post. I just reread what I wrote in my last post, and want to clarify.
If you get hit, and stay down, how is the ref supposed to know if you really are hurt or not? I mean, they could have called Tucker for diving last night, just knowing his reputation. Its not like calling diving is easy for a ref. I dotn believe you can reverse penalty calls. Like give a slashing penalty, only to realize the guys wrist is alright, so you reverse it and give the guy a diving penalty. If there is contact made, and the guy goes down, I think his reputation probably influcences greatly the penalty called
|
| 52 | Cuz
ID: 213301420
Sat, May 11, 2002, 17:10
|
I agree kev, you have to call a penalty based on the action performed - not the resulting injury.
|
| 53 | Wild Vikings
ID: 26210202
Sat, May 11, 2002, 17:22
|
Then you are disagreeing with kev, cuz.
Kev is saying that the Zednik call was more than just an elbowing. Which I agree with 100%. It was more than that because of the injuries sustained and the violence of the attack.
I dont want a ref to reverse a call...did I say that? Im saying when a player goes down, and then gives that little look to see who is looking. Couple more seconds....nope not gonna call it. So he gets up and rejoins the play. That is diving..everyone can see it. The announcers comment on almost everyone of those. But the refs dont call it and they should
|
| 54 | kev
ID: 15357192
Sat, May 11, 2002, 17:29
|
Like I said before, when you get hit in the face, your first reaction is to grab it, second reaction is to see if it got called, third reaction is to rejoin the play if it isnt called. To me, thats just normal. If you dont rejoin the play, your being detrimental to your team.
He is agreeing with me. The hit on Zednik was called properly. It was more than an elbow, it was an attempt to injure him. Thats why he got the penalty.
|
| 55 | Wild Vikings
ID: 26210202
Sat, May 11, 2002, 17:46
|
Re-read my post you will see that you just said the exact same thing I did.
And if you cant tell when a person isnt diving then you need to work on perception skills. It is easy in alot of cases.
|
| 56 | Cuz
ID: 213301420
Sat, May 11, 2002, 18:01
|
Yes, I am agreeing with kev - on the Zednik hit:
The elbow deserved a match penalty. I didn't have to wait and see how badly Zednik was hurt.
|
| 57 | kev
ID: 15357192
Sat, May 11, 2002, 18:03
|
WV- if your so good, you go be a ref...the game is a lot easier to see sitting on your couch, and seeing a billion replays.
WV- obviously you arent making sense to many, as Cuz and I tend to agree we are on the same wavelength, and your not agreeing with us. I dont think the Zednik hit was just an elbow
|
| 58 | Wild Vikings
ID: 26210202
Sat, May 11, 2002, 18:07
|
Kev funny you should mention it because I have been a referee.
Did you even read the post where I said..
"That check on Zednick.. that was an elbowing penalty nothing more."
Read the paragraph in front of it. You will be able to tell that I am pointing out what would have happened if the league followed Cuz's suggestion.
Then you came along and re-confirmed exactly what I has saying. There is a reason that we have
2 minute minor
5 minute major
& match penalties.
|
| 59 | kev
ID: 15357192
Sat, May 11, 2002, 18:10
|
And the reason that it was a match penalty wasnt because of Zednik's injury, it was because of the action- that is what both Cuz and I are saying.
|
| 60 | Wild Vikings
ID: 26210202
Sat, May 11, 2002, 18:15
|
You are wrong. The extent of that hit plays into the penalty. Go read the NHL rule book...the word "INJURY" appears in more than one place.
It is worded that way so the officials can use their judgement. If I elbow a guy in the head with little to no force at all, go figure I get maybe a two minute minor.
If I do it to his face at full speed...guess what. You can say that the action is what got the penalty but if that were the case then the light elbow would recieve the exact same penalty.
It doesnt. We have minors, majors and matches so that the ref can issue seperate penalties for seperate situations.
|
| 61 | kev
ID: 15357192
Sat, May 11, 2002, 18:28
|
Exactly. You just repeated yourself. A referee does have discretion. Have you ever heard of the term attemt to injure? That is MUCH different than the actual injury. If Zednik had been able to play again, it probably would have been the exact same call. His intent was to injure Zednik. Zednik being injured doesnt affect that.
|
| 62 | kev
ID: 15357192
Sat, May 11, 2002, 18:30
|
WV- by the way- saying "you are wrong" after saying you and I share the same viewpoint, after trying to point out to me what my viewpoint is, just gets funny. Keep it up. Maybe I will fall out of my chair with laughter next time.
|
| 63 | Wild Vikings
ID: 26210202
Sat, May 11, 2002, 18:30
|
Whatever kev...if you actually believe that you are extremely naive.
|
| 64 | kev
ID: 15357192
Sat, May 11, 2002, 18:33
|
You dont think intent to injure and the actual injury are 2 different things? Man, Im glad your not refereeing anymore then.
|
| 65 | Wild Vikings
ID: 26210202
Sat, May 11, 2002, 18:45
|
Do you honestly believe that a player who injures someone seriously on a play should get the same fine/suspension/penalty as someone who doesnt injure a player?
there are about 100 years of history, dozens of suspensions and circumstances that prove that theory of yours wrong.
|
| 66 | kev
ID: 15357192
Sat, May 11, 2002, 18:59
|
I never said that. Suspensions are different than the actual call on the ice. There can be no penalty, because the ref's missed it, and then a player gets suspended. The point Cuz and I are making, is that on the actual play, we shall continue to use the Zednik hit- the penalty should have been the same weather or not Zednik was hurt. The intent was to injury him. Weather or not he got injured, shouldnt affect the penalty in the game.
For a suspension, of course it should.
That is the point Cuz and I are making that you are on the opposite side for. You are saying (and correct me if Im wrong), that the players injury affects the penalty (post 33). Cuz and I are saying that the intent to injure affects it. If you elbow a guy in the face, your not just trying to take him off the puck. Your trying to knock his head off. Premediated or not, its careless, and thats why I believe a match penalty is called.
|
| 67 | The Voice of Reason
ID: 57327171
Sat, May 11, 2002, 19:35
|
The real question, however, is why are there 66 posts in this thread?
|
| 68 | Wild Vikings
ID: 26210202
Sat, May 11, 2002, 19:47
|
"I never said that. Suspensions are different than the actual call on the ice. There can be no penalty, because the ref's missed it, and then a player gets suspended. The point Cuz and I are making, is that on the actual play, we shall continue to use the Zednik hit- the penalty should have been the same weather or not Zednik was hurt. The intent was to injury him. Weather or not he got injured, shouldnt affect the penalty in the game."
Both you and cuz believe that a referee can become a robot and remove the results of a play from their memory when they are making a call. I still 100% disagree, I think they are only human.
I am glad that referees use their judgement on calls, because for the most part they do what they feel is right. And quite simply when intent is the same on two plays, and one play results in a paralyzed player and the other results in a guys saying "ouch", they guy who paralyzed someone will recieve much harser treatment. Both in whether or not to call a match and how long his suspension is after.
|
| 69 | Leaf ~Fanatic
ID: 554591019
Sat, May 11, 2002, 19:56
|
I don't think you have to be a robot to make a call like the one on Zednik - or others of similar fashion. Even if he had gotten up seconds later, the action still warranted a severe penalty - and even human's are capable of calling games that way.
|
| 70 | kev
ID: 15357192
Sat, May 11, 2002, 21:30
|
I dont think Cuz or I ever said a referee is a robot. I think that if the intent is to injure, the call should be the same weather or not the guy is injured or not. If you try to knock a guy out of a game, you should get the same penalty as if you did knock him out of the game. That's not asking a referee to be a roobot, that is wanting the ref to use logic. If the attempt to injure is their, and he fails, chances are, he will go back and try it again. Thats why the injury to me, shouldnt affect the penalty. The call on the Zednik hit was made before he even hit the ice. That guy was getting tossed. The game was over (score wise), and he took a shot at their leading scorer, for the purpose to take him out. I dont think the ref waited for Zednik to hit the ice before he had the called made. If you wait for the injury, I think your getting yourself in a world of trouble. If Zednik had gotten up, played the next shift, how do we know the defenseman would have tried it again, doing worse damage?
|
| 71 | Wild Vikings
ID: 26210202
Sat, May 11, 2002, 21:45
|
To Leaf Fanatic.
If it wasnt for Zednik injuries, that penalty was at best a 5 minute major. Possibly a double minor, and I wouldnt rule out the idea of it being a 2 minute minor.
If you think about the play, Zednik made a move to side step McLaren. McLaren wanted to check Zednik out of the play and tried to lead with is shoulder. Bang elbow to the face. He was actually throwing a check the way I was taught to throw a check, and I do not think it was intent to injure. Intent to throw a big hit, sure.
It all happened in the drop of a hat, it wasnt premeditated, McLaren has no history of cheap hits, and Zednik got caught not looking.
It was a bad hit because McLaren tried to land his hit even when he was beat...Im not saying it was perfectly clean. But if Zednik gets up and walks away from that hit. No way does the ref call a match penalty.
To kev.
I dont believe in zero tolerance laws for the public, for schools, and I dont want to see it in the rink for hockey refs either. Thank God the actual rules that are enforced by the NHL empower the referees to use their judgement.
|
| 72 | kev
ID: 15357192
Sat, May 11, 2002, 22:02
|
I never said "zero tolerance". But if you try and kill someone in the real world, your going to jail. If you do something to purposefully harm someone, your going to jail, weather you succeed or not.
Im not saying if I guys stick accidentally comes up and gets a guy in the face (McCabe), or rides up the other guys stick and gets in his face, he should get a match penalty. My point was taking in intent to injure. I dont think a referee needs much judgement to realize when someone is trying to injure another. McLaren was trying to injure Zednik to most, including the ref.
Im just clarifying here.
You are basically saying if a player isnt injured, it shouldnt be a match penalty, even if it is a play like Domi's or McLaren's, where to most, it was obviously just an intent to injure the player?
|
| 73 | Wild Vikings
ID: 26210202
Sat, May 11, 2002, 22:17
|
You just picked two cases where the player was injured and match penalties were issued. Why not start pointing out cases where match penalties were awarded and there werent injuries.
When you point out 3 or 4 of those then Ill start believing you.
|
| 74 | Leaf ~Fanatic
ID: 554591019
Sun, May 12, 2002, 00:40
|
Well WV, it looked to me like McLaren intentionally stuck his arm out because he knew he was going to miss Zednik. Is that not the epitome of intent there?? He knew he was beaten and he also must have known that the only way he could hit him would be to stick his arm out. And I think that should weigh more heavily on the penalty severity than the fact Zednik was urt badly.
Even if Zednik wasn't out for the entire series and then some - it was called right IMO.
|
| 75 | Leaf ~Fanatic
ID: 554591019
Sun, May 12, 2002, 00:41
|
hurt instead of urt in the last post ;)
|
| 76 | kev
ID: 15357192
Sun, May 12, 2002, 00:49
|
You have never seen a player get a match penalty for intent to injure? How bout when Scott Neidermyer hit Peter Worrell (big Florida defenseman) over the head with his stick. Worrell didnt go down at all, and actually went after Neidermyer. Neidermyer got a match penalty, and ended up getting a 10 game suspension for it.
There are many more. Look at the history of suspensions, and you will come across many "attempt to injure" suspensions/match penalties.
Here are a couple other examples...
here is story on a Matt Johnson being suspended for intent to injure Ohlund- he wasnt hurt read the article
Also, early this year, there was a brawl in Calgary, where Anaheim player Kevin Sawyer was suspended for intent to injure Mike Vernon. He ran Vernon pretty good, but Vernon was not hurt, and actually got in the fight. They mention at the end the suspension here and Vernon missed no time.
There are 3 examples, of what is actually quite a few. Those 3 were just in my memory
|
| 77 | The Voice of Reason
ID: 57327171
Sun, May 12, 2002, 03:13
|
"It all happened in the drop of a hat, it wasnt premeditated, McLaren has no history of cheap hits, and Zednik got caught not looking."
Oh Zednik was looking alright -- there just wasnt much else to see but McLaren's elbow
|
| 78 | Cuz
ID: 213301420
Sun, May 12, 2002, 03:32
|
WV - you wouldn't rule out a 2 minute minor for McLaren on that hit if Zednik hadn't been hurt so badly?? That makes no sense - it was the same elbow wether Zednik was hurt or not. So how can it be that the exact same action can be either a 2 minute penalty or a 5 minute match call like it was (and rightfully so IMO)?
Again - (the circle continues) you can't base a penalty on the injury.
|
| 79 | Wild Vikings
ID: 26210202
Sun, May 12, 2002, 05:55
|
You can base a penalty on an injury. Read the damn rule book it says so right in the rules.
Ive already pointed out several cases where it says it.
|
| 80 | kev
ID: 15357192
Sun, May 12, 2002, 06:05
|
I just re-read this thread. It's funny, just like in the other, WV has come to name calling because people think he is saying one thing, when he knows he means another (post 22). It looks like a common occurance. I guess you just have to take it, and realize he wont learn...
Anyways...yes, penalties can be based on injury, but they can also just as easily be made by the intent to injure. I gave the examples you wanted. A player doesnt have to take a dive or actually be injured for there to be a match penalty, if the intent is there.
You got your examples you wanted....
|
| 81 | Cuz
ID: 213301420
Sun, May 12, 2002, 06:11
|
Well WV...I thought we were talking only about major penalties...that's why I keep saying that you can (and should) call a penalty based upon the reckless actions...
|
| 82 | Cuz
ID: 213301420
Sun, May 12, 2002, 06:18
|
I mean..even you agreed with that in theory anyways..did you not say that in post 17?
|
| 83 | Cuz
ID: 213301420
Sun, May 12, 2002, 06:21
|
To clarify...when I say "agree with that in theory" I mean agree with calling penalties based upon the action of the agressor.
|
| 84 | Wild Vikings
ID: 26210202
Sun, May 12, 2002, 07:26
|
Kev...again. Please start reading things and stop taking them out of context. Go back and read the post that you just quoted .. PLEASE stop making false accusations. I am tired of having to defend myself over the same damn thing over and over and over.
If you go back and read JayTdawgs post you will see that he infact did twist my words around. Just because you dont like me or dont agree with me on 1 single point does not make everything I say wrong. Jeez.
Even when I go back and spell it out for you, you still come back with the same argument. Frankly it is getting quite old already.
In regards to the instances you posted.
I was fully aware of the Matt Johnson match penalty, but forgot about the attack on Worrell. Congrats on diggin that up...you actually posted some material that was useful!! I am only surprised since you have spent the better part of today attempting to convince everyone here that I dont know how to express an idea. In the process you have gathered the support of The Voice of Reason...lol still get a kick out of the name.
__________________
Penalties are based upon a players actions of course, but when those actions result in serious injury on the ice, the injury plays into the penalty call that is made. It is simply naive to believe that a referee can tune that out.
A minor becomes a major, a major becomes a match. To say that, doesnt mean you "need" the injury to have a match penalty. This is University 101 logic were are talking about. Hopefully everyone understands it.
Ill word this several different ways to increase my odds of success. You do not require an injury to have an attempt to injure penalty called. A prime example of this is "kicking or attempting to kick a player".
Corson-Cairns. Corson made a kicking motion in that fight. The referee botched the call on that play as well. This should have been a match penalty to Corson which brings with it an automatic suspension until league action. The league reviewed this play because it was a clear violation of a rule that mandatess disciplinary action.
A serious injury has always influenced a referees call, as well as any subsequent discipline from the league. Niedermeyer gets 10 games for a stick to the head, McSorley gets over double that, suspended for the remainder of the season and the playoffs...23 games I think it was.
Obviously cracking someone over the head with your stick is going to earn you a match penalty. Niedermeyer got a 10 gamer for it. When McSorley did it and Brashear was injured, how long was his suspension?
PS. You said that Worrell wasnt injured, but according to the reports I read such was not the case. The incident occured with 1:45 left to play. Worrell remained for the rest of the game, mostly out of pure rage(remember the neck slash?), but missed the next game complaining of headaches and nausea. Clasic concusion symptoms.
|
| 85 | Wild Vikings
ID: 26210202
Sun, May 12, 2002, 07:32
|
Cuz I do agree with you that penalties are called on the actions of the players. But when those actions result in injuries, the higher level of penalty is most often awarded.
|
| 86 | kev
ID: 15357192
Sun, May 12, 2002, 09:57
|
WV- Your points have been to say that the injury is to be viewed by the referee during the play (Zednik/Brashear being out on the ice). I highly doubt the referee knew Worrell the next day was going to complain of headaches. I dont think that was a factor in him making the call. I believe the fact Neidermyer had just clubbed Worrell over the head was the only basis for the call. Worrell's injury was not seen till later, therefore, the ref's call was not affected by it.
Where as Neidermyer's play was in the heat of the moment, McSorley's play was premeditated, and I do believe that was a major factor in his suspension. Yes, Brashear's injury did affect the suspension, but it did not affect the referee's call on the ice. Both calls were exactly the same on the ice, and that is what we have been debating- not the league's call. The league will suspend a player longer if another player has to miss significant time due to an injury. It's to even things out. This was never debated by me. Like I said, the calls on the ice for both Neidermyer and McSorley were the same. The intent was there in both cases.
|
| 87 | Wild Vikings
ID: 26210202
Sun, May 12, 2002, 16:32
|
WV- Your points have been to say that the injury is to be viewed by the referee during the play (Zednik/Brashear being out on the ice). I highly doubt the referee knew Worrell the next day was going to complain of headaches. I dont think that was a factor in him making the call. I believe the fact Neidermyer had just clubbed Worrell over the head was the only basis for the call."
Did you read my post? Yeah. Then you will remember where I said this....
"Obviously cracking someone over the head with your stick is going to earn you a match penalty. Niedermeyer got a 10 gamer for it."
My pointing out that Worrell was actually injured on the play was simply that. I was pointing out that he was injured on the play. There is nothing more to it, no alternative motive, just a simple statement of fact.
|
| 88 | kev
ID: 15357192
Sun, May 12, 2002, 16:40
|
So then you agree that intent to injure has just as much of a reason in the match penalty as the actual injury?
Good...your actually opening that mind of yours.
|
| 89 | Wild Vikings
ID: 26210202
Sun, May 12, 2002, 22:58
|
The funny thing is that I NEVER said that an intent to injure doesnt affect the penalty. That is one of the assumptions that you made. I have told you this multiple times now, and you try to turn it back around on me saying that I cant clearly articulate an opinion.
I said that the injury factors into the resulting penalty. And somehow you walk away with the idea that I said the intent to injure does not matter. That is a nice big jump in logic.
I again encourage you to go back and read the whole thread because this is not the only point that you have done this with. You have made several assumptions then stated that you couldnt understand my post. Clearly it is all my fault.
In fact if you read the thread again there are a couple times where other people have made the same leap in logic. I straightened them out on the subject, but then you accused me of backpeddaling my position which I clearly did not.
But according to you all of this makes me incapable of accurately expressing an opinion. And you have been more than willing to convince everyone else of this. You managed to successfully convince 1 of the other 2 people that made the same assumption as you. Congrats. You win.
I simply cant argue, or discuss things with people who do not listen. And you are not listening, you are only throwing the same unfounded insult back time and time again. SO I bid you fairwell, I wish you luck in learning how to listen to someone else opinion. That is a skill you really need.
|
| 90 | kev
ID: 15357192
Sun, May 12, 2002, 23:07
|
WV- it goes both ways. Too bad your the only one acting like a spoiled kid who is grabbing his ball after a loss, pouting, and going home.
You accuse basically everyone of twisting your words, or jumping to make assumptions about your posts.
Maybe you should just realize that no where did I say that I thought you couldnt base a penalty on an injury. So basically, you are guilty of exactly what you said I have done. Arguing a point I never disagreed with in the first place.
Go read post 46. Its short, so it shouldnt hurt your brain. I pointed out that there were many points where match penalties were handed out without injury. I pointed them out to you, because you said it was not a normal occurance, when it does actually happen....
So basically, I proved to you that it happens, and then say, good, your opening your mind, and then YOU jump to the conclusion that I have said that you dont think intent to injure is an affect of a match penalty.
So basically, you have no leg to stand on. Your a whiner, and a baby. You obviously lack the mental abilities to handle a debate where you are outnumbered, so you are leaving.
Doesnt hurt my feelings. Go learn to debate, come back, and maybe you can handle not having people take your side.
|
| 91 | kev
ID: 15357192
Sun, May 12, 2002, 23:08
|
And while you reread the post- why do you think so many people are making assumptions about your posts? Could it be because you dont make sense?
Probably.
|
| 92 | kev
ID: 15357192
Mon, May 13, 2002, 00:06
|
Just re-read the thread again.
For anyone just wanted to get the jist of where this went bad, or if WV is still reading (i have a feeling he is)
-4 times I have had to state to WV "I never said that", yet, he has said that Im twisting his words. Pot/Kettle black.
And to why one would be led to believe you dont think the intent to injure is all that important in issuing a penalty, or to why one would be confused, lets read these posts.
Post 32 (first little paragraphs)
Post 48 (again, you say perception of sevirity of injury is a selling poing)
Post 53 (your saying I agree with you, except my points are opposite of what your saying in post 32 and 48)
Post 65 "Do you honestly believe that a player who injures someone seriously on a play should get the same fine/suspension/penalty as someone who doesnt injure a player?"
That would lead me to think, as well as your earlier posts, that you think a player who injures someone should get a bigger fine/suspension/PENALTY that someone else.
Post 68- You put words into mine and Cuz's mouth, and the, you go on to say the sevirity of the injury (using an example of a guy paralyzed), results in "harsher treatment". Does that mean penalty, suspension, or what?
Easily could be interpretted as the severity of the injury affecting the penalty call.
Post 71- you now say Zednik's injury did in fact, in your opinion, affect the call. A complete change of what the opinion you stated in 32 and 48. Peception wasnt mentioned in this post- just the injury.
So basically, I have gone over this thread, probably 3 times now over the arguement- so saying I dont listen is just not a good arguement. Obviously, you have done everything you have accused me of. Like I mentioned 4 times I have had to tell you what you have stated has not been what I have said. So obviously, you are either twisting my words (which you accuse me of doing to you), or misintrepting (which you accuse me of doing, by saying Im just stupid).
So I hope your lurking to read this. I never get into an arguement without basis. I dont argue without reading what others have stated. Thats why I posted this...to prove exactly my point- your side is blurred at best. Your not clear on your point, and at the same time, your trying to say my point (as well as JayTDawg's, and Cuz's) are, when in reality, you are off base.
There ya go. End of story. I obviously have read the thread, and if Im guilty, you are in the same boat.
|
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|