|
| 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. |
| | | 1 | Synergy
ID: 23937922
Mon, May 06, 2002, 23:48
|
man.. that was such bs with the Aki Berg call.
Not that they capitalized on it, but still...it's just the principle of the matter.
The "injured" dude was right on that very powerplay. So lame.
the officiating continues to suck.
|
|
| | | 2 | JayTDawg
ID: 57327171
Tue, May 07, 2002, 03:25
|
yeap, that was a 2min penalty.
|
|
| | | 3 | Cuz
ID: 213301420
Tue, May 07, 2002, 04:54
|
If a player is genuinely injured then he should be able to play in the same game. It isn't the injured players fault that he was highsticked(or whatever) and if he can continue to play - then he he should be able to. If he dove on the play or "faked" it - then simply call the diving penalty more often. But you can't seriously expect to take an injured player out of the game. That's rediculous.
|
|
| | | 4 | kev
ID: 15357192
Tue, May 07, 2002, 05:23
|
The reason they call majors, is because they want to cut down on the stickwork. In no way should that player not be allowed to return. If your an idiot, and careless with your stick, you deserve the penalty. No if's and's or but's.
If I know a player cant return to the game without a penalty, Im sending my goon out there head hunting with his stick. I lose a goon, but take out their best player, unless they want him to return, and have to kill off a penalty.
Not the greatest of ideas.
|
|
| | | 5 | JayTDawg
ID: 57327171
Tue, May 07, 2002, 06:29
|
good call kev
|
|
| | | 6 | Wild Vikings
ID: 26210202
Tue, May 07, 2002, 15:53
|
I think the principle that TLW is working on is much like the rules for football. Where an injured player must sit out a series of downs if he goes down to a knee.
I think what TLW is talking about is cutting down on the number of people who get clipped or checked then lay still feigning injury till the ref makes the call. When the call doesnt come they poke their heads up and return to their feet 100% recovered from their feigned injury.
I would suggest that in theory it would be very effective to cut down on this by making the injured player(feigning or not) sit out for a set period of time.
But it would bring about situations where goons start smacking key players to force them out of the game. Not Good.
What they SHOULD do is call the game with its current rules!
The current rule on "diving" is worded in such a way that it includes feigning injury to draw a call
"A minor penalty shall be imposed on a player who attempts to draw a penalty by his actions ("diving")."
If a player feigns injury he better sell it for more than a few seconds because he should be getting called 2 minutes for diving everytime he does it.
The ref should also be aware of this. If he makes a penalty call...for roughing lets say. And the player who was hit or attacked drops to the ice and lays still for a few seconds only to get up as soon as the refs are is raised. He should be recieving an offsetting penalty for diving.
Conclusion. I agree with TLW that this issue is a problem in the NHL today. But I think the current rules can be used to curtail it.
|
|
| | | 7 | Wild Vikings
ID: 26210202
Tue, May 07, 2002, 15:55
|
In the event of a match penalty being issued, the injured player should NOT be allowed to return until he is evaluated by a doctor at intermission.
|
|
| | | 8 | Wild Vikings
ID: 26210202
Tue, May 07, 2002, 16:05
|
PS. If a match penalty is called, generally the player is injured quite badly. If that player returns to the game 10-20 minutes later I personally think that the player could be called 2 minutes for diving.
Their actions, laying perfectly still leaving the game on a backboard, undoubtedly effected the call that the ref made. And in most cases players injured in situations where match penalties are issued never return to the ice that game.
When we are talking about those plays where automatic suspensions are given, I think I agree with TLW...no way the injured player returns to the ice without a 2 minute minor for diving.
|
|
| | | 9 | Cuz
ID: 213301420
Tue, May 07, 2002, 17:11
|
So, by that logic, a player who is checked from behind and is injured but is able to return to the game 5 minutes later should not be allowed to play? He was still checked from behind by another player. Who cares if it is a match penalty. If it was a play deserving of it -whether the player is seriously injured or able to return a few minutes later is irrelevant to the actions of the player who commited the penalty. You cannot punish the player who had been checked form behind (or whatever) just because the infraction didn't injure him enough to be out the whole game(or for any certain amount of time). If the actions warrant a penalty - then call it because it deserved a penalty, not because the player who received is really injured or not. If the player dives or imbelishes then call the diving. Simple as that. Having said that, I agree that there is too much embelishing on the players part but you have to crack down on that by calling more diving or something - not by setting time limits on when players who were victims of a check deserving of a penalty can return to the game. (or any infraction warranting a penalty).
|
|
| | | 10 | kev
ID: 15357192
Tue, May 07, 2002, 17:49
|
Wow. This is getting quite comedical...the reason these are match penalties and majors, is because they are trying to cut down on it. If you get hit into the boards head first, chances are you gonna be groggy, and not be able to play. If you give that player a penalty, once again, Im getting my goon to run your best player, game in, and game out.
This is just getting silly. A penalty for the player who gets high sticked or gets boarded? That will make the offenses worse. It would be like a second cop coming to the scene and giving the cop who pulled you over for speeding a ticket. It doesnt make sense
|
|
| | | 11 | JayTDawg
ID: 57327171
Tue, May 07, 2002, 19:20
|
heh, yes I also think its comical...
comedical
|
|
| | | 12 | quik_ag
ID: 165410
Wed, May 08, 2002, 13:28
|
comedic would have also been acceptable ;-)
|
|
| | | 13 | kev
ID: 15357192
Wed, May 08, 2002, 16:13
|
I figure if people can create rules, I could create words ;)
|
|
| | | 14 | Wild Vikings
ID: 26210202
Wed, May 08, 2002, 18:42
|
Cuz.....If a player is injured a the offending player gets a match penalty for it then I think that the injured player should not be able to return until he is examined by a physician who can report to an official. Which means yes he sits until intermission. Be that 20 minutes or 20 seconds.
You cant tell me that the fact a player goes down and and lays motionless to be carried off by a stretcher doesnt affect the refs call. If the player is up and ready to go in 5 minutes then wtf were they doing with the strectcher...
A perfect example is last year in the playoffs. Domi elbows Niedermeyer in the head, Niedermeyer goes down and is removed on a stretcher. Immediately after he is out of sight of the officials, CBC cameras catch a glimpse of him standing in the hallway on the telephone presumably talking to his wife.
Now in that instance, the sight of Niedermeyer being carted off in a stretcher made the difference between a 5 minute major for elbowing and a 5 minute match penalty with automatic suspension. If you ask me it also factored into the length of Domi's suspension.
I think in cases like that is very fair and very sensible to force a player to sit until cleared by physicians.
|
|
| | | 15 | C.SuperFreak
ID: 17105758
Wed, May 08, 2002, 19:08
|
Fix the boards and glass around the rink and mandate players to securely fasten helmets before calling penalties involving blood and concussions.
Bergs hit on White was a penalty. I don't argue that, but look at other factors that contribute to injury.
The other 3 minutes was due to the board/glass configuration and the fact that his helmet with visor was loosely draped over his head. This is a condition suitable for drawing blood or obtaining concussion.
Unfortunately I believe owners are worried about luxury boxes in the rinks than rink safety.
PS the refs no-call on Cujo was absolutely correct. That was a good piece of refereeing.
btw, I'm a Leafs fan.
|
|
| | | 16 | Cuz
ID: 213301420
Thu, May 09, 2002, 01:23
|
WV...if a penalty is a match penalty then it is so because the actions warrant it...it should not be decided on wether or not the player is on the ice or on a stretcher or whatever. If the action warrants a 5 minute boarding call (or whatever) instead of a match penalty..then call it that way. Penalties should be called on the actions of the offending player..not by the fact a player is lying on the ice or not. I think a match penalty could be called even if the victim is not hurt at all, therefore, why should he have to sit. It is all dependant on the actions taken. I think Domi deserved a match penalty regardless if Neidermayer is walking around afterwards. And if Neidermayer was to return 5 minutes later, then he should be able to - because Domi is the one who threw the elbow with enough visciousness to warrant a match penalty. Just because Neidermayer wasn't as hurt as people thought doesn't mean Domi's actions were any less deserving of a match penalty. Again, the penalty should be decided upon the action the offending player took - if the player is up 5 minutes later or doesn't return to the game - it's irrelevant.
|
|
| | | 17 | Wild Vikings
ID: 26210202
Thu, May 09, 2002, 14:24
|
Cuz..theoretically I agree with you that it should work that way. But this is the real world and the sight of an injured player plays directly into the weight of a penalty. When a guy throws a little elbow and the player who is hit skates through it you "might" I mean MIGHT get a 2 minute minor. If that same player flops to the ground holding his chin, there is a good possiblity of a 5 minute major if the injury is sold to the ref.
Same hit, totally different outcome depending on the actions of the player.
Every player in the NHL that dives or feigns injury knows this. The instances are, in my opinion, on the rise and something has to be done about it. Simply saying they should call it without so much a passing thought as to the repurcusions of the play just wont cut it becuase in my opinion it is impossible, well as long as the refs have blood flowing through their body and not motor oil.
Yeah it would be great if refs were robots and could remain completely neutral towards the outcome of a players actions, but alas they are human.
I know this becuase I used to be a ref, and I am telling you that a refs decisions are influenced by the actions of a player, especially in the case where they think a player has been injured by the actions of another.
This is a time honored tradition that dates back to yester-year when players skated through the hooking, tried to maintain their balance and get a shot off when they are being tripped. They skated off to the bench as fast as they could when they were injured so they could get another man on the ice. Now players abuse this, and something has to be done about it.
|
|
| | | 18 | Cuz
ID: 213301420
Thu, May 09, 2002, 16:59
|
WV...I do agree that instances of diving and such are on the rise and that it is not fun to watch. Personally I think if these players had any idea of what true sportsmanship is they wouldn't dive at all. And maybe they have to start calling more unsportsmanlike penalties - or diving, but unfortunately that is hard to do. I think that the ref's should focus more on determining the severity of the penalty by applying it to the actions they saw. Such as in Domi's case, you could easily have determined that a match penalty was warranted without seeing Neidermayer's response. I realise that this is easier said than done, but I think that the efforts to curtail the antics of certain players should go this route as opposed to not allowing players who may or may not be injured as a result of another player's careless actions to play within a certain period of time.
|
|
| | | 19 | Wild Vikings
ID: 26210202
Thu, May 09, 2002, 17:20
|
Well we will have to agree to disagree then, because I for one dont think it is possible to do what you are suggesting.
|
|
| | | 20 | JayTDawg
ID: 57327171
Thu, May 09, 2002, 17:47
|
??? Niedermayer was diving? that is the biggest load of bull I've heard in a while... he was freaking unconscious -- who cares if he can use a telephone five minutes later?
|
|
| | | 21 | Cuz
ID: 213301420
Thu, May 09, 2002, 19:08
|
I don't think it is impossible at all. The league let's the ref's judge at their discretion and if I am not mistaken they raise their arm in the air as soon as they see an action deserving of a penalty - not after a player rolls on the ice for 5 minutes. And if it is indeed the case that a penalty has to be "sold" to the ref's(in deciding the diff between a 2 minute or 5 minute or no call at all) then maybe we have to take a look at the ref's themselves. To penalize a player who is on the receiving end of a viscious check(or whatever)- or to make him sit for a certain time frame before returning - is absolutely ridiculous.
|
|
| | | 22 | Wild Vikings
ID: 26210202
Thu, May 09, 2002, 23:41
|
JayDawg...you have misinterpreted what I said and twisted it for your own perceptions, your load of bull comment falls on deaf ears.
____________________________
Cuz...yes they raise their arm immediately and they also send the player to the penalty box. But they still havent made the call yet.
The ref doesnt immediately skate over and report the penalty. He instructs the player to goto the penalty box while the injured player is tended to, which is a league rule.
Then sometime later he goes to report the penalty and the misconducts. At which time, if a match and game is issued the player in the penalty box leaves.
A referee cant ignore the guy being carted off on a backboard, if he can he simply isnt human.
You are allowed to feel otherwise, but speaking from my experience Im telling you I dont think it is possible.
|
|
| | | 23 | Cuz
ID: 213301420
Fri, May 10, 2002, 00:08
|
I agree that the human element factors largely into it. I understand your point, but there has to be a better way to curb faking injuries than penalizing the victim of the aggressor. I'm not sure what it may be, but the acting is getting out of hand. I wonder if this is an issue that the League will take up at their meetings? If they do it will be interesting to see their solution to the problem.
|
|
| | | 24 | Wild Vikings
ID: 26210202
Fri, May 10, 2002, 01:37
|
Well, I dont like the idea of penalizing an injured player, and I honestly dont think that forcing a player to be cleared by a physican after a attack on him that warrants a suspension is penalizing a injured player. I think it is common sense, and quite frankly it probably already occurs that way. The only difference is a league appointed doctor does the exam. Hell I think the NHLPA would enjoy this rule because it eliminates the Eric Lindros situation of...your cleared to play. Then in fine print...one more crack on your melon could kill you.
I think the NFL's out for 3 downs rule curbs alot of the whinny behavior that has been displayed in abundance by NHL players this season.
ie "OWWW OWWW MY ARM>>>>HE HIT ME"
Does it encourage other teams to go out and attempt to injure another teams star player to keep him out the play? If a team is willing to go out and take a match penalty, which is an auto 5 minute major and an auto suspension until league review, then I think they will do it regardless of whether the player has to sit out for inspection before his return. Im not talking about a guy being clipped with a high stick, Im talking about guys who are injured by players committing match penalties.
Everyone seems to think that this is what would happen in the NHL. I emphasize "thinks" will happen, as nobody really knows for sure.
If it is what happens, then I think the league would be addressing the issue the wrong way by penalizing players. If this is the mentality that teams and coaches take, then the league has to attack the problem at its source. The teams in general and the coaches.
|
|
| | | 25 | JayTDawg
ID: 57327171
Fri, May 10, 2002, 04:07
|
whatever... this conversation is brutal anyway
|
|
| | | 26 | JayTDawg
ID: 57327171
Fri, May 10, 2002, 04:10
|
Thats ok I can handle being called a perception twister. Oh, and sorry to hear about your sudden hearing impairment.
|
|
| | | 27 | JayTDawg
ID: 57327171
Fri, May 10, 2002, 04:13
|
Cuz: Well really that just doesnt make any logical sense.
WV: I realize it doesnt but lets argue about it anyway.
|
|
| | | 28 | The Left Wings
ID: 760719
Fri, May 10, 2002, 05:15
|
I disagree with Cuz on the length of a penalty should not be decided on
wether or not the player is on the ice or on a stretcher or whatever (post 16). I think that the length of the penalty should indeed depend on the severity of the injury to the victim. If the victim was up and well, obviously the penalized player did not commit that bad a mistake. If the victim was stretchered out of the arena (assuming he did not fake it), then obviously that was a much more severe breach of the rules and should thus be punished more.
I think that the convention of "minor penalty if victim is not hurt, double minor if blood is drawn , a major and a match if the victim is stretchered out of the arena" is a good one, but players are beginning to take advantage of it.
And Cuz, what you're calling a "vicious check" (post 21) to the victim seems to be a dive by the victim to me.
The biggest problem right now is that the refs don't have all the instant replays that we have at home. If they have instant replays, I'm sure they can make much better judgements. But that is just not possible because it will slow down the game way too much. Therefore, most of the time, penalties are called even though the so-called victims were clearly diving to those of us watching the replays 5 times at home. I mean, everything happens so fast on the ice, it is very easy to fake an injury.
|
|
| | | 29 | Wild Vikings
ID: 26210202
Fri, May 10, 2002, 05:33
|
JayTDawg......
TLW
One clarifying point on the blood drawn rule. There is no blood drawn rule, the double minor is called when the player is "injured", there is no mention of it in the rulebook, never has been probably never will be.
Thats probably an argument in semantics, but there are situations that arise where the referee has not called a double minor even when there is the presence of blood.
To your argument for speed of the game being an issue, I would like to add the theory of angles. Have you evere watched a game where it looked like a puck went in the goal, then when they show the other angle you see that it didnt?
That same theory works for players that dive. When viewed from the angle that instant replay provides you can clearly see when a player takes a dive. But much like the phantom punch or movie punch when you turn that angle all off a sudden it looks real.
Most players that are good at diving, Hasek being one of them, are aware of referees presence and know when they can make something look good.
The arrival of the two-referee system doesnt really help because the two referees essentially split up the ice to cover a greater area. Ive never reffed in the two ref system, thank god.
|
|
| | | 30 | Cuz
ID: 213301420
Fri, May 10, 2002, 05:46
|
Whatever....this is going around in circles. If penalties were supposed to be determined by the length or severity of an injury then why isn't that the case in the rule book? The rule book defines actions that deserve penalties - it also defines the length of time for the penalties regardless of the injury. The exception is the high sticking where blood is drawn- and the intent to injure match penalty.
If the victim was up and well, obviously the penalized player did not commit that bad a mistake. If the victim was stretchered out of the arena (assuming he did not fake it), then obviously that was a much more severe breach of the rules ....that makes no sense TLW. A penalty is a penalty. Nowhere in the rulebook does it state that should a player be injured the penalty taker has breeched the rules more than if he is not. Just because a victim is up sooner than later doesn't make the penalty less severe. If a brutal elbow is thrown to the head of a player but for some reason the victim isn't hurt badly - does that mean that the agressor he should not get a substantial penalty for it? Of course he should. The same penalty that he would receive had he not been able to return. The severity of the penalty hs to be judged on the severity of the aggressive action - like the NHL rulebook has laid out.
And by the way...I wasn't refering to any specific check in post 21...so I don't know what you mean by saying it looks like a dive to you...does that mean all players who get creamed by others are diving?
|
|
| | | 31 | Cuz
ID: 213301420
Fri, May 10, 2002, 07:32
|
It's like this...On the Domi hit last year, it was a match penalty definitely. You knew that before Niedermayer even hit the ice. I didn't have to stick around to wait and see how badly Neidermayer was injured to know that Domi deserved a match penalty. Same thing this year with McLaren on Zednik. I didn't have to wait to see how badly injured Zednik was before I knew that McLaren deserved a match penalty - even if Zednik had gotten up and skated away. Same thing on O'neil's check on Souray. Match penalty no doubt - again, didn't have to wait and see if Souray was hurt badly. You know before the player is injured because you see the action - not the consequence.
|
|
| | | 32 | Wild Vikings
ID: 26210202
Fri, May 10, 2002, 14:13
|
Im not so sure I would have issued a match penalty to Domi. The selling fact for me was Neidermeyer being stretchered off.
In regards to your penalty is a penalty philosophy, I think you are wrong. Most penalties are determined by the referee using the severity of the offense to gauge a players actions.
Hooking
If you put your stick around someones waits and give a really light tug...no penalty. If you impede his progress but do it away from the play....might be obstruction hooking. If you haul him down creating a scoring opportunity you are gonna be in for 2.
Slashing
If you take your stick and whack a guy lightly on the hip to let him know you are there chances are no penalty. If you hit him across the arm, perhaps youll get a penalty if the player does a "yelp". If you two hand him with authority.....good bye you are in the box.
If you go through every penalty in the book, you will find that most common penalties are in fact determined by the severity of the offense. Think about it.
The only ones that require no measurement of severity are penalties like:
Delay of game called on goaltender who puts the puck over the glass before the blueline....no deflection.
Defenseman gloves the puck in his own crease = penalty shot.
Player coming over the boards touches the puck before his change partner gets off the ice = two minute minor too many men.
Player skating down the boards towards an empty net is touched by a player on the opposing bench = play stopped automatic goal awarded.
There are a few more like this, most are obsucre that they are rarely called and all of them have set circumstances. But the common penalties like hooking, holding, roughing, charging, slashing, boarding, cross-checking, even fighting are left up to the ref for interpretation and the severity of the action by the player. It has always been this way, it should always be this way.
|
|
| | | 33 | Wild Vikings
ID: 26210202
Fri, May 10, 2002, 14:20
|
Domi - 5 minute major for elbowing, Match penalty because of the apparant severity of the injury, or possibly because it was away from the play.
Zednik - 5 minute major for elbowing. Happened at the drop of a hat, no way it was premeditated, only reason it was a match penalty was the severity of Zedniks injuries.
Souray - match penalty, and in my opinion it was the worst hit of the three by a grand mile. Hitting a guy from behind who is up against the boards is one thing, but when he is a step away like that, there is a pretty high chance of paralyzing a guy, or worse.
|
|
| | | 34 | Cuz
ID: 213301420
Fri, May 10, 2002, 17:04
|
Well we are going around in circles again. We won't agree on it. But I think we are getting off topic anyways. The issue was players diving and faking injuries to sell it more to the officials. I agree it is on the rise and something should be done. The problem is it is not easy to come up with a viable solution.
I don't think dis-allowing players who were injured (to whatever severity) to play is a good idea. This penalizes the player who got hit and his entire team. What may end up happening is 4th line type goon players will go after star players to get them off for a period.
Hypothetical Example: Say Reed Low checks Shanahan or Fedorov (insert your Detroit star here) early in the game...say 2 minutes in. And say Shanahan was down because he had the wind knocked out of him, but is physically able to return a few minutes later. If - by the rule suggested - he is not allowed to play until the next period it penalizes Detroit and Shanahan for getting hit and I don't see that being at all fair.
But after we have all said our piece it really doesn't matter because the rules are how they are and players will continue to dive and nothing we say will change it - as much as we would like them to sometimes.
|
|
| | | 35 | The Left Wings
ID: 760719
Fri, May 10, 2002, 17:36
|
Guys, that's what I said it was a convention. Conventions are never in the rulebook. If it's in the rulebook, it's called a rule, not a convention. I think the convention I talked about is a good one in the sense that it can make calls consistent among all the refs.
And to your example, Cuz, remember that if Reed Low takes out Shanny, then Tkachuk, Weight, Pronger, MacInnis (and insert your favourite Blue here) will be in danger too. That's why each team has several goons on it. They've been doing exactly what you said (goons going after star players) for several decades already. Remember why Semenko plays with Gretzky?
Moreover, attempt to injure warrants a league review and most likely a lengthy suspension.
|
|
| | | 36 | Cuz
ID: 213301420
Fri, May 10, 2002, 18:32
|
That's exactly my point TLW...that rule or convention opens up the stars of the game to trouble. It puts a target on their back...
I don't think each team has several goons on it. And I don't agree that goons go after star players at all like they used to.
Kev said it best in post 4.
|
|
| | | 37 | kev
ID: 15357192
Fri, May 10, 2002, 19:36
|
then why the next 30 or so posts ;)
|
|
| | | 38 | Leaf ~Fanatic
ID: 554591019
Fri, May 10, 2002, 20:02
|
I have to agree with Cuz and Kev on this one. I also think that the NHL should eliminate the instigator rule to bring the intimidation factor back into the game. Stick infractions and such have gone way up since "policing" was taken out of the game...one point I agree with DOn Cherry on...
|
|
| | | 39 | Wild Vikings
ID: 26210202
Fri, May 10, 2002, 20:45
|
post #4 exists already today.
|
|
| | | 40 | Wild Vikings
ID: 26210202
Sat, May 11, 2002, 01:21
|
"Hypothetical Example: Say Reed Low checks Shanahan or Fedorov (insert your Detroit star here) early in the game...say 2 minutes in. And say Shanahan was down because he had the wind knocked out of him, but is physically able to return a few minutes later. If - by the rule suggested - he is not allowed to play until the next period it penalizes Detroit and Shanahan for getting hit and I don't see that being at all fair"
By your hypothetical example, a match penalty was not issued therefore Shannahan goes to the bench and returns to play as soon as he gets his wind back.
|
|
| | | 41 | Wild Vikings
ID: 26210202
Sat, May 11, 2002, 01:23
|
you are confusing a normal penalty here with a match penalty..... ie 5 minute major and a game misconduct, with automatic suspension of the guilty player.
|
|
| | | 42 | Cuz
ID: 213301420
Sat, May 11, 2002, 02:21
|
I was assuming a major penalty was called
|
|
| | | 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.
|
|
|
|