The Ditch part deux

Ford guy here so that always gets a +1

 

i agree about carlton - but there are cases where i disagree.

here's my example. before the trial even started, rosie o'donnell (tyler kennedy's mother, maybe?) used her celebrity to pronounce to the world that OJ was obviously guilty. this is without seeing a single shred of evidence yet, or hearing a single piece of actual testimony. now, i watched the vast majority of that trial, and at this point, i think he did it too. but she will forever be a c*** for having made the statement she did, when she did it. for her sake, if SHE is ever charged with something, i hope she is shown more consideration. when u use the cult of celebrity like that, you're getting pretty damn close to being a lynch mob.

is hernandez guilty of bad judgement? that looks pretty clear. is he guilty of more? no idea. the fisk case is a lot easier to judge.

 

cmon Lulz is this not a face you can trust

 

ok, that was disgusting. i'll ask tim of there's any way to stop one poster from posting images

 

I understand your point, but she's not the media. She goes right to my point about people making an arse of themselves. Other than a small niche of the populace, she's an arse, so I don't have a problem with her screaming her opinion.

We know she won't probably won't be shown more consideration because she'll reap what she sowed. I don't know about the lynch mob thing, but the accused are still protected by the courts and she risks civil liability herself for calling out a lynch mob of sorts. If she damaged an innocent, or even a guilty person to the point she caused them damage, the victim has legal recourse of their own against clowns like that.

I don't like Rosie, if I spent more time thinking about her, I might hate her. That being said, I'm glad she can do what she wants with her voice and I'm just as glad that she can face consequences if her voice goes too far.

I don't like the opinioneers steering bull#### about things that have serious life consequences and I don't like frivolous defamation lawsuits, but Rosie would be a great example of why I'm glad both exist.

I like the right to be an arsehole and I like that somebody can take me down legally if I go past just being an arsehole.

I'll let Yakov say it for me:
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLZ56s9kJ8k[/video]
"what a country"

 

Yakov was great, few suffered worse when Russia removed their tattoo headed leader than Yakov.

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbP1DVeJCT0[/video]

 

Hybrid icing, goalie pads, spin-o-ramas outlawed, and other fun things being considered.

Hybrid icing seems like a no-brainer, so I doubt they implement it.
Looking at 10% off the height of the goalie pads.

 

Among the other recommendations the GMs voted in favor of are:

* All double-minor penalties for high-sticking will be subject to video review.

interesting. would love to hear what exactly is and is not reviewable.


* The League will eliminate the attainable pass, which gave linesmen the discretion to wave off icing infractions on attempted passes that are deemed to be attainable. With the new standard, there must be contact with the stick.

all for this one. gives [del]fans[/del] everyone one less judgement call to bitch about. it either hit someone's stick past the center red line, or it didn't.

* Beginning next season, the NHL would use nets that are 4 inches shallower. Nets will remain six feet wide by four feet tall, but they will be 40 inches in depth, down from 44 inches.

ummm, ok. can't get real excited about this one either way.

 

the more i think about this, the more i think they can't screw it up. of course, see bob's earlier thought...

not implying they won't implement it here - just that their ability to dazzle with idiocy should never be underestimated.

 

This is very interesting, it could eliminate the subjective end of it at game speed but how many angles will be available and will the rule have to be amended after a season's worth of reviews?

I'm in agreement here Lulz and this is a common sense issue to a pretty clear cut rule.

If it was 8 to 12 inches it makes a difference in game-play, but at 4 this just seems like an attempt to add something to the list of 'Hey, look at what we are doing over here!'.

40 inches must be the minimum for stable netting is my guess or else they would have probably taken it down some more IMO.

 

The 4 inches gained behind the net will help get all the nucks forwards behind the net at once. Oh wait, AV is in NY.

 

The double-minor review will look at the eyes of the perpetrator and decide if the devil was present.

 

Eliminating the attainable pass will just delay the game.

 

i'll make that tradeoff, red.

 

The hawks need toews to play like this the whole series.

 

The best part about tonight's game:

The hockey season extends for a couple more days into the summer.

Hawks controlled the game. Goofy bounces and shaky Crow almost cost Chicago the game. Gotta love the resiliency by the Bruins, Hawks had it going but they wouldn't fold it up, kept adjusting and making plays. Any hockey fan can appreciate how both teams can play 2-1 or 6-5 and still win.

While I think the extra day favors the Bruins more than the Hawks, Crawford reallly needs the extra day to find his net and to discover his glove again.

 

Crawford got burned so many times on the glove side, i actually started thinking about the drummer from Def Leppard.

 

lol halo, that is funny, I wasn't thinking about buckner over and over

 

I was impressed with the hawks ability to get in front or quasi close to the front of the net. still too many d lapses

 

HOLY CRAP!!! Slim Whitman died!