buzzcut

Rite of Spring 2019: The Chase for the Stanley Cup

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Bagel said:

If only Jamie Benn would have scored this: 

 

 

Not bad for a rookie. He should be getting a nice little raise soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Still MIGHTY said:

 

Ah, poetry.

Y’know, in general, the Boston fans on here are super cool. None of them really lean into the stereotype that we all like to perpetuate, they’re cool when they win, cool when they lose, overall just very grounded. 

 

It’s posts like these that remind me why I root against Boston sports at every possible opportunity. A man who, in his words, “13 hours ago”, was rooting for Brad Marchand is talking about the other team being “goons” and not liking it when “their style” wins titles. Thank you, St. Louis. The sports world forever owes you a debt of gratitude. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, AustinFomBoston said:

That Stars-Blues series was insane. I really was hoping Dallas would have won. 

You also had this BS;

I don't care who you are, That never should have counted. 

He didn't even leave the game after playing dead like that. The refs made the right call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Cosmic said:

He didn't even leave the game after playing dead like that. The refs made the right call.

Regardless they should have stopped to make sure he was ok first, rather than giving Blues what amounted to an empty net. How is that fair at all?

Goalie gets hit like that & doesn't get right back up, play should immediately be stopped. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, AustinFomBoston said:

Regardless they should have stopped to make sure he was ok first, rather than giving Blues what amounted to an empty net. How is that fair at all?

Goalie gets hit like that & doesn't get right back up, play should immediately be stopped. 

Nope. The refs can stop the game if they think the player is in danger (Malarchuk or Zednik), or if the injured player's team gets possession. It's important to keep in mind that the whole thing took place in about three seconds from shot hitting Bishop to goal. The ref is making his way towards Bishop with his whistle up to his mouth, and the goal goes in right as he gets there. There's no obligation to make sure each team gets to put up a good fight at all times. If a shooter comes in 1-on-1 with a defenseman, then the defenseman catches a weird edge and goes down, does the play get blown dead to stop a breakaway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Cosmic said:

Nope. The refs can stop the game if they think the player is in danger (Malarchuk or Zednik), or if the injured player's team gets possession. It's important to keep in mind that the whole thing took place in about three seconds from shot hitting Bishop to goal. The ref is making his way towards Bishop with his whistle up to his mouth, and the goal goes in right as he gets there. There's no obligation to make sure each team gets to put up a good fight at all times. If a shooter comes in 1-on-1 with a defenseman, then the defenseman catches a weird edge and goes down, does the play get blown dead to stop a breakaway?

There's a stark difference between a Defensemen going down & a Goalie going down. 

As I understand, it comes down to Referees discretion whether to blow a play dead when it comes to an (possibly) injured Goaltender. There was plenty of time to do it, but he didn't. Which amounted to a free goal for St Louis. 

They'll overturn for "Goalie interference" but not this? I fail to see the difference there. 

 

But I guess like every team, Blues benefited from a lot of BS to win a championship.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, AustinFomBoston said:

There's a stark difference between a Defensemen going down & a Goalie going down. 

As I understand, it comes down to Referees discretion whether to blow a play dead when it comes to an (possibly) injured Goaltender. There was plenty of time to do it, but he didn't. Which amounted to a free goal for St Louis. 

They'll overturn for "Goalie interference" but not this? I fail to see the difference there. 

 

But I guess like every team, Blues benefited from a lot of BS to win a championship.  

Goalie interference is literally an opposing player stopping the goal keeper from playing their position. This was just a goalie getting hurt through a normal, legal play. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Cosmic said:

Goalie interference is literally an opposing player stopping the goal keeper from playing their position. This was just a goalie getting hurt through a normal, legal play. 

Yes, In both scenarios the Goalie is unable to properly play their position. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AustinFomBoston said:

Yes, In both scenarios the Goalie is unable to properly play their position. 

... but if the other team didn't do anything wrong and the goalie isn't in immediate danger, it's not their problem that the goalie can't play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, infrared41 said:

 

Do people actually listen to these idiots? By that I mean do they get any kind of ratings? Who would find this entertaining? Am I done asking questions? I think so? 

 

No. And nobody especially listens to 98.5. There are like two or three radio people worth listening to in the Boston area. The rest are terrible at their jobs, but somehow employed (Callahan, Ordway, Picard, Mazz and Felger, etc.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Cosmic said:

... but if the other team didn't do anything wrong and the goalie isn't in immediate danger, it's not their problem that the goalie can't play.

 Down on the Ice, clutching his head, unable to immediately get up. I'd say that Qualifies as "Immediate danger". As well as not being able to play the position. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AustinFomBoston said:

 Down on the Ice, clutching his head, unable to immediately get up. I'd say that Qualifies as "Immediate danger". As well as not being able to play the position. 

The ref was on his way to check on him. The goal went in so fast, it didn't matter. It seems like another good time to note that Bishop stayed in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Brass said:

 

No. And nobody especially listens to 98.5. There are like two or three radio people worth listening to in the Boston area. The rest are terrible at their jobs, but somehow employed (Callahan, Ordway, Picard, Mazz and Felger, etc.)

 

I get that sports talk radio is worse now than it's ever been before and that it panders to the lowest common denominator, but it's especially bad in Boston. We non-Bostonians love to hate on your teams in part because we love talking about what dip :censored: 's your fans are, but, frankly, the blame for that is split in multiple directions. When you have bad sports talk radio personalities who encourage this kind of behavior, can you really be shocked if this is the outcome? 

 

Though, in fairness, toxic, LCD discussion on the radio is far from limited to just sports stations. Pretty much any talk radio channel is littered with these problems. Radio in general is just a broken enterprise today, and unless you're listening to music stations, you're probably just better off avoiding it altogether.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Cosmic said:

The ref was on his way to check on him. The goal went in so fast, it didn't matter. It seems like another good time to note that Bishop stayed in the game.

There was plenty of time to blow the whistle & stop the play before the puck went in. The Ref just chose not to. 

And Bishop staying in is irrelevant. In the moment it looked like he could be hurt, but play wasn't stopped until after they scored on a defenseless Goalie. 

 

Bottom Line, Blues benefited from a lot of lucky calls/no calls just like EVERY team does. Lest just agree on that, shall we? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brett Hull is REALLY enjoying himself.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kramerica Industries said:

 

I get that sports talk radio is worse now than it's ever been before and that it panders to the lowest common denominator, but it's especially bad in Boston. We non-Bostonians love to hate on your teams in part because we love talking about what dip :censored: 's your fans are, but, frankly, the blame for that is split in multiple directions. When you have bad sports talk radio personalities who encourage this kind of behavior, can you really be shocked if this is the outcome? 

 

Though, in fairness, toxic, LCD discussion on the radio is far from limited to just sports stations. Pretty much any talk radio channel is littered with these problems. Radio in general is just a broken enterprise today, and unless you're listening to music stations, you're probably just better off avoiding it altogether.

 

There are "dip :censored:" fans on every team. I just think Boston's are more vocal than the dip :censored: fans of other cities.

 

You've hit the nail on the head, though. Some of the most vocal of the dip :censored: fans are the ones on the radio. Dale Arnold is probably the saving grace when it comes to Boston area sports talk. Level-headed, smart, and not trying their damndest to play some sort of PG shock jock, which most of the morning and afternoon guys fall into. Another show, Mustard & Johnson is pretty good, but they're regulated to weekend duty only.

 

I've said it before, but sports talk radio in itself just stinks. Danny Picard here is the king of ending everything with "WELL WE'LL JUST HAVE TO SEE HAPPENS NOW WON'T WE?!" Of course we will, because we don't play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/13/2019 at 1:31 AM, RaginRonic said:

You had no business even talking about that piece of crap Pickton anyway. In you talking about him, I wash my hands of it.

 

Because I can see through a lot, and you bringing him up was a rather stupid deflection. I eat deflection for breakfast, for the record.

 

=P

 

Now that you're banned and probably don't care, let me answer it. It wasn't a deflection, I did it to get a rise out of you. I wanted to see where your sense of perspective was in regards to "black marks on Canadian glory." I also like how you didn't even discuss me bringing up terrible owners in Canada or the lacrosse bit, something that you could have used to bolster your argument (again, not deflecting, I just wanted to see how you behaved as a troll). 

 

But back to hockey,

 

On 6/14/2019 at 1:10 AM, Still MIGHTY said:

 

Ah, poetry.

 

And like the Bruins would be quoting Shakespeare and not yelling “F*** YEAH BOYS” like every hockey team ever. GTFOooooooo.

 

It's the sports version of those whiny geek podcasts/YouTube shows (e.g., Geeks and Gamers, Collider, etc.), except without the outright misogyny. It's amazing how much the "jocks" share in common with the "nerds."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.