One thing Rog and I will agree on.

[sfgdood]

The referee in the Sharks game is filthy Anti-Sharks douchebag and he needs to be fired, caned, keelhalled, horse whipped, waterboarded, have a 2 ton weight dropped on him and shot with several 12 guage shotgun rounds

[rog]

Well, those things aren't appropriate, that's for sure. I didn't like the call, but I'm not even sure it was wrong. Unfortunate, but not necessarily wrong. I simply don't know the rules well enough.

The Sharks announcers pointed out that the Golden Knights' goalie Fleury was outside the blue paint that defines the goalie crease, implying that he was then responsible for contact, not the Shark forward who collided with him.

But while Logan Couture certainly isn't a violent player who would try to skirt the rules in that situation, he did appear to hit the goalie in the head with his elbow, preventing the goalie from playing the shot that went in for an apparent Sharks goal, only to be wiped out by the penalty call. I can understand why the referee made the call. Whether it was correct or not, I simply don't have the rules knowledge or experience with the play to know.

[sfgdood]

well, putting aside the fact that every former player with an opinion on it said the call was bullshit, it's also bullshit that the play is not reviewable. In my opinion, everytime a goal is disallowed, it should be automatically reviewed.

[sfgdood]

here is how the rule reads:

“If an attacking player initiates any contact with a goalkeeper, other than incidental contact, while the goalkeeper is outside his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed. A goalkeeper is not “fair game” just because he is outside the goal crease. The appropriate penalty should be assessed in every case where an attacking player makes unnecessary contact with the goalkeeper.”

If anyone can credibly say that Logan initiated the contact, you might as well say it's illegal to go to the front of the net. At BEST it was incidental contact, and it was definitely outside the crease. Someone needs to tell me how Logan could have done his job going to the net and still avoid contacting Fleury who, if anyone initiated contact, it was him.

For the Sharks not to be allowed to request a video review is just absurd. Its also absurd that a Vegas player got away with highsticking Timo Meier, cutting him open in game 1. The Sharks are getting it up the anus with no vaseline. Its like the League WANTS Vegas to win.

[sfgdood]

Ive looked it over and to me it really looks like Fleury is twisting his body before contact was made...I guess he sold it well.

[Islandboagie]

What made you think Rog would wish bodily harm on an official even if the call was blown?

Rog considers himself a part of the officiating brotherhood since he officiated a junior high basketball game 30 years ago. He will always support them. I dont necessarily disagree with him in that regard. I dont think they intentionally blow calls to piss you off, Randy. They're human, they make mistakes just like the rest of us. There are exceptions however, some are terrible and have no business out there making calls.

[sfgdood]

I think the NBA proved that referees can easily be influenced or comprimised...one of the main reasons I want balls and strikes called by machines. The NHL clearly wants specific teams to go farther in the playoffs and others, not so much.

[rog]

The NHL clearly wants specific teams to go farther in the playoffs and others, not so much.
~Dood


Rog -- Once again, Randy, you are talking out of the wrong end of your body.





Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5237/thing-rog-agree-on#ixzz5l1jVgnCs

[rog]

What made you think Rog would wish bodily harm on an official even if the call was blown?


Rog -- Anyone who would wish bodily harm on an official is a horrible human being.





Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5237/thing-rog-agree-on?page=1#ixzz5l1jksqLT

[rog]

I attended a birthday dinner Sunday night with a baseball umpire scheduler. He has a former MLB umpire working for him, and he believes the guy is living in his car. The guy lost his umpiring job and received a settlement, but both my friend and I agree that the guy isn't a good official. I asked my friend how the guy got to the majors, and he had no answer.

It's really hard for an umpire to make the majors, similar although not quite as competitive as a player, and I just don't understand how the guy made it that far. I like the guy; he's been fine to me; but he's just not a particularly good sports official; and I don't think it speaks well for the majors that they chose him --- although they ultimately righted the decision.

[Islandboagie]

Randy- I think the NBA proved that referees can easily be influenced or comprimised...one of the main reasons I want balls and strikes called by machines. The NHL clearly wants specific teams to go farther in the playoffs and others, not so much.

Boagie- Players and coaches have been comprimised too, doesn't mean all of them are corrupt. I do agree sometimes there appears to be favoritism, one example would be Gary Darling and his love for the Dodgers and hate for the Giants. I'm glad that a-hole retired.

[sfgdood]

And Vegas gets away with a head shot in the first period...yeah I think we know where the zebras heads are at

[rog]

Last night the Sharks advanced to the second round of the NHL Playoffs in the most exciting hockey game I think I have ever seen. (Maybe Detroit in 1994.) And they were aided by a major penalty that had it been called against the Sharks rather than the other way around, Randy would very likely have used as "proof" of his conspiracy theory.

The call was rare (especially for playoff hockey), the call was questionable, and the call proved highly instrumental in the Sharks coming back from down three games to one and advancing despite the 3 to 1 deficit and being badly outplayed over the course of the majority of the final two games.

[sfgdood]

There was going to be a power play in any case...the severity of the injury is what forced the ref's hands in calling a major. Personally I thought Stastny's actions were more egregious as he basically prevented Pavelski from bracing his fall. Regardless of the call, the Knights were up by 3 still. If this happened to the Sharks, I'd be more pissed at the players for blowing the lead than the call...it was deserved...no goal was taken off the board as in Game 2.

[rog]

Good point about Stastny. I could have seen a penalty on Stastny as well as Eakin. But the major was unusual, and injury severity shouldn't really have much to do with it, should it? It is the potential for injury that makes the offense worthy of a penalty.

But my point is that if the two teams had been reversed, you very likely would have used the play as "proof" that the refs wanted the Golden Knights to win. When you get an idea in your head, your understanding of facts and events seem to become very highly skewed by your opinion.

I would really like to get off your case, but I don't think you're using the good brain God gave you.

[sfgdood]

No...the blood on the ice pretty much guaranteed there would be severe consequences

[sfgdood]

Well guess what...the NHL issued an APOLOGY to the Knights for the "bad call." I don't remember the Sharks EVER getting an apology from the league, not even for the brutal call in Game 2 that pretty much gifted that game to Vegas. Not to mention all the cheap shots and high sticks to Sharks' faces the Knights got away with in the 7 games. We had to get teeth knocked onto the ice to get a damn call.

Yeah that seems fair...not showing any preference at all. Since when is it the business of the league to apologize for questionable calls anyway? Teams get shafted every day in this league for incompetent refereeing. This is a HUGE disrespect to the Sharks. Vegas was up 3 games to one and 3-0 in game 7 but this apology now takes away from the Sharks' accomplishment and instead basically says, "it's ok Vegas...it was OUR fault you lost."

But it's ok...knowing the league is fully against them could fuel the Sharks even further just as the Knights' thuggery did in Game 7.

[rog]

The league's comments clearly showed that what turned out to be a series-deciding call went mistakenly to such a high degree in the Sharks' favor. Not surprising though, Randy, that you would try to turn that around to show that the league was showing favoritism AGAINST the Sharks.

I'm hoping the Sharks can regain the lead against the Avalanche tonight, but they are certainly lucky to be still playing. They were BADLY outplayed by the Golden Knights. Speaking of which, has there EVER been an expansion team in any sport who went to the finals in their first year and then made the playoffs in the second (and likely should have gone beyond the first round, as much as I'm glad they didn't).

By the way, I don't think the Sharks need to know that the league is "against them" (really?) to get motivated. The tough factor for the Sharks is that they're battling through a lot of injuries. They're starting to get better goaltending though.

[sfgdood]

Did that call lose Games 5 and 6 for the Knights also? Did the Knights NOT have the opportunity to stop ANY of the 4 Power Play goals they allowed in the 5 minutes? Allowing just ONE fewer goals in that span of time would have won the game and series for Vegas. The Sharks allowed ZERO goals in a 4 minute Colorado power play...it DOES happen.

The call did not decide the series...just like all the calls in the series in which the Sharks got the shaft did not decide the series.

[sfgdood]

And believe me the Sharks do know the league is still against them as it always has been.

You like to ask questions...answer this one. When has the league EVER issued an apology for a questionable call? If the answer is never, then you will know it is clear the Sharks are hated at league HQ.

[rog]

When has the league EVER issued an apology for a questionable call? If the answer is never, then you will know it is clear the Sharks are hated at league HQ.


Rog -- I know that other sports have issued bad call apologies, but I don't know about the NHL. What I do know though is that even if that it the only apology they have ever issued, your logic is incorrect.

When examining whether something is true or not, it is often good to look at what makes sense. WHY would the league hate the Sharks?

And going back to your original point that the ref was out to get the Sharks, by series end it was apparent that wasn't the case by the refs overall.

Be honest, Randy -- you're anti-official, kind of into conspiracy theories against the teams you root for, and you were frustrated -- not objective or analytical -- when you made your comment. Now that subsqeuent events have shown your premise to be ridiculous, you're bailing water like crazy.

If you would simply stick to things that make sense, you wouldn't face this problem so frequently.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5237/thing-rog-agree-on#ixzz5mh57Dg6t

[sfgdood]

Ok now you MUST admit the bias against the Sharks exists now. Sharks on the PP and Karlson gets tripped right in open ice, IMPOSSIBLE to miss, it leads to a Colorado break and instead of a 5 on 3 PP for the Sharks, the Avs get a PP.

IN OPEN ICE!!

[sfgdood]

How much do you want to bet the Sharks DON'T get an apology?

[sfgdood]

And NBCSN didnt even mention the play ONCE in the intermission...the whole world wants San Jose to get shafted.

[sfgdood]

And they never mentioned it in the postgame either. All they talked about was how the dominant Avs were all over the sharks for an amazing two goals, not counting the empty netter.

When the Sharks get the shaft, nobody notices or cares. When the Sharks get a break and WIN, all anyone says is the Sharks got lucky

[rog]

IMPOSSIBLE to miss


Rog -- Obviously not. It's possible that with the Sharks already having a one-man advantage, and its being playoff hockey where more is let go if it doesn't lead directly to an advantage, that the referee felt that since Karlsson was able to get right back up and wasn't really pursued by the Avalanche defender -- who clearly expected to be called for a penalty -- they didn't feel it was worth giving the Sharks a two-man advantage.

I'm a believer that a penalty is a penalty no matter when it occurs, but you know that more is let go in the playoffs -- especially where it would lead to a two-man advantage.

You're one of those guys who believes the referees shouldn't decide the game, but I believe that by calling things differently depending on the situation, they DO decide the game. A non-call can decide the game much like a call can.

You just can't have it every way you want, Randy. You're not consistent, and you're not logical.

[rog]

.the whole world wants San Jose to get shafted.


Rog -- Of course they do, Randy. Not the least big paranoid, are we?




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5237/thing-rog-agree-on?page=1#ixzz5muloZcmf

[sfgdood]

IMPOSSIBLE to miss


Rog -- Obviously not. It's possible that with the Sharks already having a one-man advantage, and its being playoff hockey where more is let go if it doesn't lead directly to an advantage, that the referee felt that since Karlsson was able to get right back up and wasn't really pursued by the Avalanche defender -- who clearly expected to be called for a penalty -- they didn't feel it was worth giving the Sharks a two-man advantage.

Dood - and yet they had NO trouble giving Colorado a 2 man advantage on a FAR less obvious call later in the game. The ref's job is not to call ONLY the fouls that would make a difference in their judgment. That isn't how it is written in the rule book. If a team knows they wont be killing any 2 man disadvantage power plays, that gives them no motivation to NOT foul the other team at will. The guy fouled EK65...it was so obvious even he reproached himself immediately. Everyone in the barn saw it...there shouldn't have been any booing if the call was made. The Sharks deserved the 5-on-3 advantage and even though Karlsson was able to get up with possession, he was off balance and not where he wanted to be and got surrounded and dispossessed before he could make a pass safely.

The fact that nobody on the broadcast team or in the studio even mentioned it tells me they don't care about a fairly called game. Vegas and Colorado are their darlings and the Sharks are their villians and therefore deserve to have EVERY call go against them.

[rog]

The fact that nobody on the broadcast team or in the studio even mentioned it tells me they don't care about a fairly called game.


Rog -- Gosh, Randy, you keep making statements you have no clue about. I like to have intelligent discussion and learn something from our posters, but you just keep speculating as if you had a clue.

I really think you are plenty sharp enough to make more logical comments if you simply put your mind to it. You seem to comment with your gut without bothering to filter it through your mind. And since you don't use the good mind God gave you, you make a lot of unthoughtout comments with very little to back them up (usually because there isn't much to back them up).

You really can do better, Randy. In fact, it seems that long ago you were pretty sharp with your comments. Probably I'm just misremembering, but I'm not sure I can remember whatever it was I'm trying to remember. At least I think I was trying to remember.

As an aside, I'm my new grandson's NON-HALL OF FAME grandpa. His other one yesterday was inducted into the Skateboarding Hall of Fame. In what turned into a great extended call, I called yesterday afternoon to congratulate him on the evening's upcoming festivities, only to have to quickly say good-bye so I could answer my daughter's call. Boly knows how tough it is to get a raise as a teacher, but my daughter was selected for a teaching job in a new district that gave her a huge raise. I told her I was most proud of her through because she felt that the job -- with underprivileged kids -- gave her a chance to make a difference.

Not that she was giving the money back!

Anyway, just think of me as the non-Hall of Famer who didn't get a raise.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5237/thing-rog-agree-on#ixzz5mvsEcC2X

[sfgdood]

Rog -- Gosh, Randy, you keep making statements you have no clue about.

Dood - tell me what I wrote that was incorrect

Was an easy call against Colorado not made that would have given the Sharks a 5-on-3 PP?

Was a more questionable call made against the Sharks that gave Colorado a 5-on-3 PP later in the game?

Did the NBCSN broadcast team or studio team decline to mention the Sharks getting shafted?

Did they refuse to make a huge fuss like they did after the call in game 7 of the Vegas series?

Go on...tell me where I was wrong. I'd love to hear it.