EnderAndrew Posted June 9, 2004 Posted June 9, 2004 I know we've got a few Canucks here. Are they any hockey fans in the crowd? What did you make of the Stanley Cup finals? Is it just me or is everyone skipping a huge story here. One could argue that Calgary had the cup stolen from them in both games 4 and 6. Very questionable officiating decided the outcome of the series. In Game 4, the lone goal was scored when two questionable calls were made giving Tampa Bay and 5 on 3. In Game 6, Calgary scored what would be the game-winning goal in regulation. This was very clear on replay, and all the announcers seemed to agree upon it. Yet, the refs didn't even try to review the goal. This was a tight game of 1 point victories. 2 games were swung on bad/questionable calls. And is there even going to be hockey next year?
Child of Flame Posted June 9, 2004 Posted June 9, 2004 I know we've got a few Canucks here. Are they any hockey fans in the crowd? What did you make of the Stanley Cup finals? Is it just me or is everyone skipping a huge story here. One could argue that Calgary had the cup stolen from them in both games 4 and 6. Very questionable officiating decided the outcome of the series. In Game 4, the lone goal was scored when two questionable calls were made giving Tampa Bay and 5 on 3. In Game 6, Calgary scored what would be the game-winning goal in regulation. This was very clear on replay, and all the announcers seemed to agree upon it. Yet, the refs didn't even try to review the goal. This was a tight game of 1 point victories. 2 games were swung on bad/questionable calls. And is there even going to be hockey next year? Hockey=the most violent sport in the world=JT don't play it.
EnderAndrew Posted June 9, 2004 Author Posted June 9, 2004 I could argue that rugby and lacross are just as violent. I think the potential for really bad injuries is really bad in hockey. You're not just running full force. You're skating really fast when you smack into each other.
Child of Flame Posted June 9, 2004 Posted June 9, 2004 I could argue that rugby and lacross are just as violent. I think the potential for really bad injuries is really bad in hockey. You're not just running full force. You're skating really fast when you smack into each other. Not to mention you're skating on more or less razorblades. I saw a hockey game once, it was very, very, very, bloody. I saw one guy try to stab another with his skate. B)
EnderAndrew Posted June 9, 2004 Author Posted June 9, 2004 I think hockey and auto-racing are the only sports where fans have died in the stands because of the sport. (I know fans have died at soccer matches from fans fightning amongst themselves. That doesn't count. And the running of the bulls is just stupidity, not a sport in my book).
Volourn Posted June 9, 2004 Posted June 9, 2004 Calgary deserved to lose. theyw eren't the best team. 1. I didn't watch game so I can't say. 2. Even the Calgary coach stated the replay was inconclusive, and this guy has been bias against the officials from day 1 whining about somee mythical conspiracy. Bottom line is the better team won. DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.
EnderAndrew Posted June 9, 2004 Author Posted June 9, 2004 In the regular season, there is no doubt in mind that Tampa Bay was a better team than Calgary. In the playoffs, Calgary played incredibly well. The Finals were a very close match. Mind you, I'm not a Calgary fan. I'm an Avalanche fan, and normally I could care less about the playoffs when Colorado is knocked out. However, I was watching most of the games in the Finals and I though Calgary was robbed in Game 6. The picture I saw showed the puck was clearly over the line. Pictures can sometimes lie, but the fact that the refs didn't even pause the game to review the goal shows that they didn't even care to make the right call.
Volourn Posted June 9, 2004 Posted June 9, 2004 No. They made a judgement call which they are allowed to. Replay si there if the ref has doubt. He didn't. Of course, I don't trust NHL refs anyways as theya re often morons but c'est la vie. I agree, though, the series could have gone eiher way. Calagry earned their way through. However, Tampa earned the Cup. DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.
EnderAndrew Posted June 9, 2004 Author Posted June 9, 2004 Perhaps the refs made the right call. I don't believe they did in Game 6, but it is their perogative. And I've seen worse officiating in games before. I just can't believe that I haven't seen anyone really talking about this. When you have bad officiating in football, people go nuts. And when Brett Hull clinched the cup for Detroit against Buffalo with a BS goal (he was clearly in the crease) Buffalo went nuts! The funny thing is that Detroit whooped Buffalo. One goal did not make or break that series. If Calgary had that goal in Game 6, they would have won the Cup. Perhaps it is simply that Canadians don't throw fits over such things. I know that I've been livid for a decade over the 1993 National Championship game between Nebraska and Florida State (which remains arguably the worst officiating I've seen in any sport ever). The only thing that even comes to mind that strikes me as bad as the 1993 game was when the Pittsburgh Steelers were in a playoff game that went to overtime. Now the first team to score wins the game, so the cointoss for possession of the ball is important. Jerome Bettis of the Steelers called "Heads" and the toss came up heads. The referree said that Bettis said tails and gave the ball to the other team. Now this is classic. Not only did Bettis argue that he called heads, but the other team also said Pittsburgh should have the ball because he called heads. They replayed it a million times, but the referree would not budge. The other team scored on their first possession and the game was over. Pittsburgh was out of the playoffs.
mr insomniac Posted June 9, 2004 Posted June 9, 2004 Perhaps the refs made the right call. I don't believe they did in Game 6, but it is their perogative. And I've seen worse officiating in games before. I just can't believe that I haven't seen anyone really talking about this. When you have bad officiating in football, people go nuts. And when Brett Hull clinched the cup for Detroit against Buffalo with a BS goal (he was clearly in the crease) Buffalo went nuts! Actually, it was Dallas that beat Buffalo that year. Hull was a Star at the time. That was a goal that clearly should have been reviewed at least, given that the majority of the time through the season and the playoffs, goals were reviewed when someone was even close to the crease. IIRC, series was 3-2 at that point, and if Buffalo had won, they would have forced a game 7. They had Hasek in goal then, anything was possible. Don't get me wrong, I'm no Sabres fan, they beat out my Leafs that year :angry: ...but that call was just wrong. As for Canadian hockey fans not throwing fits... *remembers Vancouver in '94 after game 7* ...and that was a legitimate clincher scored by Leetch(?) I'm disappointed that the Flames lost, but Tampa showed they were the better team in game 7. If only the Flames had played the entire game like they played the last 12 minutes. But the Lightning deserved to win, congrats to them. I took this job because I thought you were just a legend. Just a story. A story to scare little kids. But you're the real deal. The demon who dares to challenge God. So what the hell do you want? Don't seem to me like you're out to make this stinkin' world a better place. Why you gotta kill all my men? Why you gotta kill me? Nothing personal. It's just revenge.
Volourn Posted June 9, 2004 Posted June 9, 2004 I laugh at Vancouver. Everyone was worried about NYers throwing a tantrum if they lost and celbrating too aggreisvely if they won. Yet it was Vancouver fans who acted pathetic. LOL What's even funnier, my fave team won that year! DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.
mr insomniac Posted June 9, 2004 Posted June 9, 2004 It was a pathetic display all right, and what's worse... the Canucks beat my Leafs out that year. :angry: I took this job because I thought you were just a legend. Just a story. A story to scare little kids. But you're the real deal. The demon who dares to challenge God. So what the hell do you want? Don't seem to me like you're out to make this stinkin' world a better place. Why you gotta kill all my men? Why you gotta kill me? Nothing personal. It's just revenge.
EnderAndrew Posted June 9, 2004 Author Posted June 9, 2004 Actually, it was Dallas that beat Buffalo that year. Hull was a Star at the time. I plead sleep deprivation. It's been a long, rough week and it's late. But that was really stupid of me. Yes, it was in fact Dallas. But I do maintain that Buffalo wasn't going to win that series even if that one goal had been overturned.
mr insomniac Posted June 9, 2004 Posted June 9, 2004 You're probably right. The Stars were a great team and deserved to win, but not that way. It was a silly rule to introduce in the first place, and to have it enforced all through the season and then ignored on the cup-winning goal... It's a hell of a way to lose. I took this job because I thought you were just a legend. Just a story. A story to scare little kids. But you're the real deal. The demon who dares to challenge God. So what the hell do you want? Don't seem to me like you're out to make this stinkin' world a better place. Why you gotta kill all my men? Why you gotta kill me? Nothing personal. It's just revenge.
EnderAndrew Posted June 9, 2004 Author Posted June 9, 2004 I think it's the worst way to lose. I'm a big Red Sox fan. I know losing. Last year, Boston was five outs from the World Series. A stupid decision was made and in the 12th inning of Game 7, I fell to my knees in anguish. Yet, I can get over that loss. I harp on the 1993 Nebraska loss because as the oppossing coach Bobby Bowden put it "Nebraska beat us everywhere but the scoreboard." Nebraska was an 11 point underdog if I recall and completely outplayed Florida State. A lengthy series of bad calls gave the game away. If a team gets beat, I can deal with that. When a game is stolen by bad officiating, it's the worst.
mkreku Posted June 9, 2004 Posted June 9, 2004 It is strange when people blame the officiating for losing a game. Sometimes the puck bounces in, sometimes it bounces out. Sometimes you get the calls in favor, sometimes you do not. Referees are just as much part of the game as anything else on the ice. We could easily let technology take over all the officiating completely if we wanted (sensors inside the puck and below the ice could keep track of where the puck is at all times, more cameras etc.) but who would want to watch a game like that? All sports is a game of chance, that's what makes it so exciting to play. If the better team always won, who would want to watch the games? Ps. I'm a Leafs fan myself. 37 years (since the last cup) and counting, baby! Swedes, go to: Spel2, for the latest game reviews in swedish!
Oerwinde Posted June 9, 2004 Posted June 9, 2004 The goal in game 6 I agree with the officials that its inconclusive. It looks like its in in the replay, but you have to account for camera angle as well. As for officiating, its been bad all season. Last season too, and for a while this season, it seemed like it was biased against the Canadian teams too. A lot of people around here figured it was like that because if two canadian teams made the playoffs the ratings in the US would suffer, so they had to make sure at least one US team made it. I think its a bit silly, but I wouldn't completely rule it out. It sure seemed like it with how many bad calls were made against the Canucks this year. Players being called for penalties they didn't do, penalties against them not being called (such as the elbow against Naslund that caused the whole Bertuzzi fiasco), we don't get other team's games around here until the playoffs so I can't say what its like for others. The fighting issue everyone was so up in arms about is total crap. How many players are seriously injured in a fight each season? Not very bloody many. They're all injured in either fluke accidents, or cheap shots by either dirty players, or players with built up aggression because if they start a fight they get hit with an extra penalty for instigating. The area between the balls and the butt is a hotbed of terrorist activity.
Oerwinde Posted June 9, 2004 Posted June 9, 2004 It was a pathetic display all right, and what's worse... the Canucks beat my Leafs out that year. :angry: We were just copying Montreal. :D And at least one good thing has come of it, Vancouver is the most prepared city in the world for a disaster now. The area between the balls and the butt is a hotbed of terrorist activity.
EnderAndrew Posted June 12, 2004 Author Posted June 12, 2004 I maintain the refs should have at least reviewed the goal. If one angle shows it as in, then it was close enough to review. If they had reviewed it and waved it off, I'd feel better. And like I said, I'm not even a Flames fan. There are times when calls can go either way, and you're right that refs are just as much a luck factor as other things. However, I think most fans would agree that you never want to see the ref be the deciding factor. What's worse are the hockey primadonnas crying for more money in bankrupt league. I don't know if I'll watch the WHL.
Volourn Posted June 12, 2004 Posted June 12, 2004 Blame the owners. If the onwers can't control themselves; that's their problme not the players. Why should the players say no to big contracts? that's ludicrous. Every single owner is a friggin' rich businessman so they aren't stupid business wise (you would think so, anyways) so why do they offer money they supposedly can't aoffrd? It's bullocks. Now, the wobrs are whining like crybabies because of THEIR stupid decisions. DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.
mkreku Posted June 12, 2004 Posted June 12, 2004 Blame the owners. If the onwers can't control themselves; that's their problme not the players. Why should the players say no to big contracts? that's ludicrous. Every single owner is a friggin' rich businessman so they aren't stupid business wise (you would think so, anyways) so why do they offer money they supposedly can't aoffrd? It's bullocks. Now, the wobrs are whining like crybabies because of THEIR stupid decisions. Dumb as a rock as usual. Every team in the NHL has different markets. Canadian teams can offer less money because of a different currency. Cities like Detroit, Toronto and Denver and Philadelphia have a huge hockey following and therefore their markets are profitable. They buy the players they want and drive up prices sky high. Then there are smaller markets like Tampa Bay (Reigning Stanley Cup champions), Nashville and Columbus that can't afford to pay the same salaries to their players. Because of the CBA they have to anyhow and naturally they can't make ends meet. A league can't exist with 3 wealthy teams battling it out and 27 poor teams being cannon fodder. Swedes, go to: Spel2, for the latest game reviews in swedish!
Volourn Posted June 12, 2004 Posted June 12, 2004 Mkreku posted the following: "Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!! Someone else has more money than me! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!" Please try aagin as you obviously failed. P.S. It's funny hwo often you call me a flamer and troll yet you do the same exact thing but 100% of the time as if you noticed my post involved 0 flames for any board members. gof igure. Keep up the good work entertaining me. P.S.S. Did you happen to notice that it was Calgary and Tampa Bay in the Finals this year or did you happen to conviently forget that? LMAO DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.
mkreku Posted June 13, 2004 Posted June 13, 2004 Mkreku posted the following: "Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!! Someone else has more money than me! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!" And as usual you lie. Where did I write that? Swedes, go to: Spel2, for the latest game reviews in swedish!
EnderAndrew Posted June 13, 2004 Author Posted June 13, 2004 Calgary was a number 6 seed. They are the exception, and Tampa Bay had a much better year than expected. The real problem is this. The average NFL team makes $77 million a year in TV revenues and pays an average of $1.5 million to a starter. The average NHL team makes $2 million a year in TV revenues and pays an average of $1.5 million to a starter. No one can really afford it. Free agency is a pox on all sports. Athletes aren't playing for legacies, or to compete. They're playing for dollars. It's part of the reason I prefer college sports. The salary cap makes sense in any sport, but the NHL most of all. If the players walk, then I'm done with hockey.
Volourn Posted June 13, 2004 Posted June 13, 2004 mkreku: read your posta agin. It's there in black and white. ender: That's the point. It's the owner's fault. Also, you say the players are just playing for moeny? I disagree, and Calgary, Tampa Bay, and all the other 14 play-off teams would disagree with you as all of them universally played for the leagacy of winning the cup. The real problem isn't the tv revneues. that's a symptom of the owners being too stupid to realize they cna't afford $10 mil contracts. What does a business person (or anyone for that matter) do when they can't afford something. Simple, they don't poay for it. Unfortinately it seems those who own professional sports teams tend to forget that. As for your college sport thing, it's the players being taken advantage of. They get a dgree that costs what? $50? Menahwile the colleges make millions of dollars. Yeah, talk about fairness. Not to mention, if a player is even hinted at taking 'bribes' to play ata certain colege he is in a heck of a lot of trouble. If the players walk I blame the owner for not having any self control. DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now