My crazy theory

On Dec 30, 9:40�pm, Bender <Jeffrey.S.Morri....TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 30, 7:25 pm, Rckwy5 <Rck....TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > un-needless
>
> Double negative.
>
> I do think you have a point, however. �I'm also suspicious of the way
> the linesman dropped the puck, the 0.0006% downhill grade on that side
> of the ice, the poor stitching of Huet's jersey, and the unfair
> "vibes" that the crowd was emitting.

Thank the head office in Toronto for two wins in two nights.
 >> Stay informed about: My crazy theory 

On Dec 30, 7:43 pm, Rckwy5 <Rck... RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote:
> Thank the head office in Toronto for two wins in two nights.

Don't forget the Carolina game where the Officials/Rangers beat the
Canes 3-0 in the third period despite Orr shanking Cullen in the ribs
with the knife he made out of an old toothbrush.
 >> Stay informed about: My crazy theory 

On Dec 31, 6:53 am, Bob Levine <f....DeleteThis@fake.com.invalid> wrote:
> This one is on the ref. He had no business calling that a goal based on
> Avery celebrating...and that's exactly what happened.
>
> He couldn't have seen it go in and he couldn't have seen the net move. I
> could understand if a stick went into the net at the same time but not
> this. The replay officials had no choice to look at every single angle
> to make sure it didn't go in. They did their jobs...it's the ref who
> should be dealt with.

So we've just accepted it as fact that having a goal reviewed and
overturned somehow turns into a demoralizing factor for the team that
came out on the positive side of the review?

Yeah boy, the refs sure handed the Rangers that game on a silver
platter. I can't imagine anything more beneficial to my psyche than
to think my team had scored the tying goal then having it waved-off.

Luckily that review lasted all of 3 minutes. If it had taken 2.5 the
result would have been 15-2 Montreal and Lundqvist would have blown
out his knees and the roof of the Garden would have fallen down.
THANK YOU NHL OFFICIALS FOR CHEATING THE DEVILS FOR THE THIRD STRAIGHT
GAME!

What imagined slight will occur in the outdoor game to rob the Devils
of precious points and dignity? Maybe a sideways look at the puck? A
strange hand-signal to a man in the stands? Only time will tell!
 >> Stay informed about: My crazy theory 

On Dec 31, 10:30 am, Bob Levine <f....TakeThisOut@fake.com.invalid> wrote:
> I don't recall saying or implying any of that.

Just another in a series of passive-aggressive attacks on coach.

To address your complain directly, it IS possible that the official
saw a bit of stick or something in the net, and maybe felt that it was
the puck?

Avery thought it was in and celebrated -- I'm sure that swayed the
official as much as anything though.
 >> Stay informed about: My crazy theory 

On Dec 31, 2:09�pm, Timmy B <timb....TakeThisOut@noptonline.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 09:23:29 -0800 (PST), Bender
>
> <Jeffrey.S.Morri....TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
> >So we've just accepted it as fact that having a goal reviewed and
> >overturned somehow turns into a demoralizing factor for the team that
> >came out on the positive side of the review?
>
> >Yeah boy, the refs sure handed the Rangers that game on a silver
> >platter. �I can't imagine anything more beneficial to my psyche than
> >to think my team had scored the tying goal then having it waved-off.
>
> Ignore this Bob, it's not about you.
>
> Amazing isn't it.
> Don't consider right after the review Montreal had a 2-1 at the
> Rangers net with Henrik coming up big and keeping it a 1 goal
> game.Throw out the fact the tieing goal was a result of a face-off
> win. Something that the Rangers were superior at all night. Forget the
> fact that the Habs were just waiting to give up a goal in that third
> period. All of that was of no factor. The video review that went
> *against* the Rangers was the turning point. Gave the already surging
> Rangers new life and crushed Montreal's resolve. This one you can't
> make up.
>
> Timmy

It gave them a nice 5 minute timeout. When you consider they played
the night before, it can only help, especially at the time it happened
in the game.

And again, Timmy, you still aren't answering the question. Should it
have taken *that* long to wave off a "goal" that was as plain as day
hitting the post? That review should have taken 30 seconds/minute
tops. The delay in the game was something that is normally saved for a
kick in goal, a puck crossing the line or something where you really
need to analyze close. That official made more of it then it was.
 >> Stay informed about: My crazy theory 

On Dec 31, 5:42�pm, FDR <nos....TakeThisOut@asdfkdskkl.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for letting us know eagle eyes.

*yawn*
 >> Stay informed about: My crazy theory 

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:59:58 -0800 (PST), Rckwy5 <Rckwy5 DeleteThis @aol.com>
wrote:

>It gave them a nice 5 minute timeout. When you consider they played
>the night before, it can only help, especially at the time it happened
>in the game.

It also gave Montreal time to get the game back on even keel. The Habs
were retreating the Rangers were coming on. The time out, as easily
as it allowed the Rangers to rest, it also slowed down the Rangers
momentum. It also gave Montreal time to adjust, to adapt, to turn the
game into a snooze fest. Now we can stay here all night and debate
pros and cons on which team was helped the most. We can argue over who
came out of the break ready to play and who didn't.
But to attribute that review/break as the sole reason the Rangers won
the game without looking at the context of the game is, to be nice, a
"stretch".

Before the review the Rangers were already coming at Montreal.
Montreal had already decided to sit back. The Rangers were already
dominating face offs. Avery was already camping out in front. All this
did not start after the review. The nature of the game did not change
- Rangers attack - Montreal defends The Rangers didn't suddenly come
alive. You don't want to credit the Rangers, fine - I'm not surprised.
But you want to blame somebody, blame Montreal for trying to milk a
one goal lead with over a period to play, not the NHL for giving the
Rangers another two points.

>And again, Timmy, you still aren't answering the question.

I didn't know you asked. But I'll try.

>Should it have taken *that* long to wave off a "goal" that was as plain as day
>hitting the post?

Ken it was also plain as day to you that White didn't high stick
Shanahan. We all know how that went when you *don't have* all the
angles available to you.

Plain as day to who? You and I watching at home after seeing the
replay 3-4 times? How about the ref who had to rule on it in real
time? Does he get a chance to watch the monitor then call it a goal or
non goal?

>That review should have taken 30 seconds/minute
>tops.

In a perfect world.

>The delay in the game was something that is normally saved for a
>kick in goal, a puck crossing the line or something where you really
>need to analyze close. That official made more of it then it was.

But Ken, you have no idea what was going on during the
review.Everything is speculation on all our parts. Was the ref adamant
that he saw the puck go in? Did the judge want to make sure he had all
his bases covered? Did a monitor go down? Did the phone go down? Were
all the angles available? Did somebody in Toronto intervene? There
could have been 20 things that caused that review to take time.

The right call was made.

Timmy
 >> Stay informed about: My crazy theory 

Bender wrote:
> On Dec 31, 6:53 am, Bob Levine <f....DeleteThis@fake.com.invalid> wrote:
>> This one is on the ref. He had no business calling that a goal based on
>> Avery celebrating...and that's exactly what happened.
>>
>> He couldn't have seen it go in and he couldn't have seen the net move. I
>> could understand if a stick went into the net at the same time but not
>> this. The replay officials had no choice to look at every single angle
>> to make sure it didn't go in. They did their jobs...it's the ref who
>> should be dealt with.
>
> So we've just accepted it as fact that having a goal reviewed and
> overturned somehow turns into a demoralizing factor for the team that
> came out on the positive side of the review?
>
> Yeah boy, the refs sure handed the Rangers that game on a silver
> platter. I can't imagine anything more beneficial to my psyche than
> to think my team had scored the tying goal then having it waved-off.
>
> Luckily that review lasted all of 3 minutes. If it had taken 2.5 the
> result would have been 15-2 Montreal and Lundqvist would have blown
> out his knees and the roof of the Garden would have fallen down.
> THANK YOU NHL OFFICIALS FOR CHEATING THE DEVILS FOR THE THIRD STRAIGHT
> GAME!
>
> What imagined slight will occur in the outdoor game to rob the Devils
> of precious points and dignity? Maybe a sideways look at the puck? A
> strange hand-signal to a man in the stands? Only time will tell!

I don't recall saying or implying any of that.

Bob
 >> Stay informed about: My crazy theory 

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:53:31 GMT, Bob Levine <fake DeleteThis @fake.com.invalid>
wrote:


> They did their jobs...it's the ref who
>should be dealt with.

Pretty much a non-issue. You're reacting to a sour grape post by
someone who can't stand to see the Rangers win a game. This happens
100 times during the course of a season. Why is it an issue this time?
The process worked and it worked exactly how it was supposed to work.
None of us were privy to the conversation that went on between the
video review and the ref. Just assumption on my part, (as is your
assumption the ref reacted to Avery), the ref pretty much explaining
where he thought the puck hit and the video judge making sure all
angles of replay showed it not be true. There were no rules broken, no
exceptions made, just the process in action. We all ready know from
past experience how hi-sticks are missed when you don't have the
correct angle.

Now what do you suppose we should do with that ref? Fine him? Fire
him? Come on, how do you think ref's would respond in the future when
they know that they could lose a job over a video review? How quick
and decisive do you think they would be to make a call then? OK, if
there is a trend with a certain ref then you have a problem and you
address it.

Guys this is a quick game, sometimes too quick for the human eye and
brain to interpret probably. Was the ref fooled? Yes. In a perfect
world should he have been fooled? No. Will it happen again? As long as
humans ref, yes.

Happy New Year
Timmy
 >> Stay informed about: My crazy theory 

Rckwy5 wrote:

> Jeffy, you still aren't getting it. There shouldn't have been that
> much of a review, period.

I disagree. Once the official said it was in the needed to look at EVERY
angle to be sure it didn't go in.

Bob
 >> Stay informed about: My crazy theory 

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 09:23:29 -0800 (PST), Bender
<Jeffrey.S.Morrison.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:

>So we've just accepted it as fact that having a goal reviewed and
>overturned somehow turns into a demoralizing factor for the team that
>came out on the positive side of the review?
>
>Yeah boy, the refs sure handed the Rangers that game on a silver
>platter. I can't imagine anything more beneficial to my psyche than
>to think my team had scored the tying goal then having it waved-off.

Ignore this Bob, it's not about you.

Amazing isn't it.
Don't consider right after the review Montreal had a 2-1 at the
Rangers net with Henrik coming up big and keeping it a 1 goal
game.Throw out the fact the tieing goal was a result of a face-off
win. Something that the Rangers were superior at all night. Forget the
fact that the Habs were just waiting to give up a goal in that third
period. All of that was of no factor. The video review that went
*against* the Rangers was the turning point. Gave the already surging
Rangers new life and crushed Montreal's resolve. This one you can't
make up.

Timmy
 >> Stay informed about: My crazy theory 

"Timmy B" <timbrug RemoveThis @noptonline.net> wrote in message
news:17fin3deeqq0ocqm0ps0jtmum0ktc4guv6@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 09:23:29 -0800 (PST), Bender
> <Jeffrey.S.Morrison RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>So we've just accepted it as fact that having a goal reviewed and
>>overturned somehow turns into a demoralizing factor for the team that
>>came out on the positive side of the review?
>>
>>Yeah boy, the refs sure handed the Rangers that game on a silver
>>platter. I can't imagine anything more beneficial to my psyche than
>>to think my team had scored the tying goal then having it waved-off.
>
> Ignore this Bob, it's not about you.
>
> Amazing isn't it.
> Don't consider right after the review Montreal had a 2-1 at the
> Rangers net with Henrik coming up big and keeping it a 1 goal
> game.Throw out the fact the tieing goal was a result of a face-off
> win. Something that the Rangers were superior at all night. Forget the
> fact that the Habs were just waiting to give up a goal in that third
> period. All of that was of no factor. The video review that went
> *against* the Rangers was the turning point. Gave the already surging
> Rangers new life and crushed Montreal's resolve. This one you can't
> make up.
>
> Timmy

Everyone is missing the actual, obvious truth. The ref called a goal
because he was against the Rangers. By calling goal, the players stopped
playing, when they could have got to the rebound and put it in before the
goalie really knew what was happening. The ref saw Avery react and knew it
was his chance to screw the beloved blue. That is part of off-season
referee clinics and this was a perfect execution of the technique.

The review took too long because the ref was laughing it up on the phone
with the war room NHL people about how he had screwed the Rangers out of a
scoring chance. Like in the movies when the bad guy takes time to explain
his evil doings, it ended up turning around on him because that extra time
and the waved-off goal fueled the Rangers to no end. The inspiration found
when they realized the game was not really tied after their hard work in the
third was unstoppable.

I mean really, who among us wasn't completely pumped up when you saw the
puck didn't really go in, but that actual seconds were elapsing before the
next faceoff? I was so happy when I saw the ref wave it off because I knew
my blue was already preparing to score again and that no-goal was just what
the doctor ordered.

It was as obvious as a punch in the face. Or a stick.

Other Tim
 >> Stay informed about: My crazy theory 

Ken, How do you know how long it should take to review a play? (Serious
question.)

-Dougie

Rckwy5 wrote:
> On Dec 31, 2:09�pm, Timmy B <timb....DeleteThis@noptonline.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 09:23:29 -0800 (PST), Bender
>>
>> <Jeffrey.S.Morri....DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> So we've just accepted it as fact that having a goal reviewed and
>>> overturned somehow turns into a demoralizing factor for the team that
>>> came out on the positive side of the review?
>>> Yeah boy, the refs sure handed the Rangers that game on a silver
>>> platter. �I can't imagine anything more beneficial to my psyche than
>>> to think my team had scored the tying goal then having it waved-off.
>> Ignore this Bob, it's not about you.
>>
>> Amazing isn't it.
>> Don't consider right after the review Montreal had a 2-1 at the
>> Rangers net with Henrik coming up big and keeping it a 1 goal
>> game.Throw out the fact the tieing goal was a result of a face-off
>> win. Something that the Rangers were superior at all night. Forget the
>> fact that the Habs were just waiting to give up a goal in that third
>> period. All of that was of no factor. The video review that went
>> *against* the Rangers was the turning point. Gave the already surging
>> Rangers new life and crushed Montreal's resolve. This one you can't
>> make up.
>>
>> Timmy
>
> It gave them a nice 5 minute timeout. When you consider they played
> the night before, it can only help, especially at the time it happened
> in the game.
>
> And again, Timmy, you still aren't answering the question. Should it
> have taken *that* long to wave off a "goal" that was as plain as day
> hitting the post? That review should have taken 30 seconds/minute
> tops. The delay in the game was something that is normally saved for a
> kick in goal, a puck crossing the line or something where you really
> need to analyze close. That official made more of it then it was.
>
>
>
>
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: My crazy theory