For the food. Just local, non smug places that look like a great place to eat. - tomburton99
Fair enough. I just hate that guy. And you know I hate him because he's a super nice guy and apparently showed up to the Malibu wildfires and was cooking food for all the firefighters and I STILL hate him.
Thank you. If Lemieux goes shoulder to shoulder with Roussel this isn't a topic of discussion. Lemieux saw Roussel falling, decides he was gonn hit him anyway. Seeing the Replay, the refs called it incorrectly. Should have been a minor. But none the less it's still a penalty. - tomburton99
Have you ever played hockey?
You are absolutely correct (please keep reading after this) that Lemieux had decided he was going to make Roussel pay for going through the crease, but once he fell there was no chance of bailing out of the hit. The whole sequence took less than one second. Unfortunate, but should not have even been a penalty. If they make the call based on the optics, I can understand that. But, even then it should have been a minor and that's all.
Kreider right call, Lemieux's call was a (frank)ing joke, should of gave 2 to Roussel for not knowing how to skate. - mdw7413
I disagree about Kreider's.
Definitely careless and reckless, so a major was certainly warranted. But, I don't see intent to injure, so I thought the game misconduct was too much. Not crazy overboard, but if they decide to give him a suspension that is WAY too much.
Have you ever played hockey?
You are absolutely correct (please keep reading after this) that Lemieux had decided he was going to make Roussel pay for going through the crease, but once he fell there was no chance of bailing out of the hit. The whole sequence took less than one second. Unfortunate, but should not have even been a penalty. If they make the call based on the optics, I can understand that. But, even then it should have been a minor and that's all. - Tonybere
Location: I would rather see a dudes hairy balls than his hairy feet-Jimbro Joined: 12.13.2013
Mar 14 @ 11:11 AM ET
I disagree about Kreider's.
Definitely careless and reckless, so a major was certainly warranted. But, I don't see intent to injure, so I thought the game misconduct was too much. Not crazy overboard, but if they decide to give him a suspension that is WAY too much. - Tonybere
I don't have a problem with the call, but agree no intent, no supplemental discipline
I disagree about Kreider's.
Definitely careless and reckless, so a major was certainly warranted. But, I don't see intent to injure, so I thought the game misconduct was too much. Not crazy overboard, but if they decide to give him a suspension that is WAY too much. - Tonybere
He's not. Its one accusation against him. - mdw7413
He's not a homophobe? You have something credible on this?
What I read was that he gave his production team poop for sending him to a restaurant run by a gay couple. Telling them "those people weird me out! You can't send me into a place like that unaware."
Since then, reportedly, he has them scout out the sexuality of the owners before committing.
Maybe this came from an unreliable source, IDK, but I haven't seen anything to counter it.
Perhaps, but I don't think so.
Either way, I'd rather that than just plain not know what the (frank) I'm talking about. - Tonybere
Yeah. You realize that what Kreider did and what Malkin did are the same thing right? Kreider just hit Pettersson in the face with his elbow instead of the ear with his stick.
Location: I would rather see a dudes hairy balls than his hairy feet-Jimbro Joined: 12.13.2013
Mar 14 @ 11:20 AM ET
He's not a homophobe? You have something credible on this?
What I read was that he gave his production team poop for sending him to a restaurant run by a gay couple. Telling them "those people weird me out! You can't send me into a place like that unaware."
Since then, reportedly, he has them scout out the sexuality of the owners before committing.
Maybe this came from an unreliable source, IDK, but I haven't seen anything to counter it. - Tonybere
It was an accusation by 1 person. So your idea is if 1 person makes an accusation against you, you are what that person says and its your job to prove your not? So if Tom calls you a racist you are a racist till you can prove to everyone your not?
It was an accusation by 1 person. So your idea is if 1 person makes an accusation against you, you are what that person says and its your job to prove your not? So if Tom calls you a racist you are a racist till you can prove to everyone your not? - mdw7413
Do you use me in this example. I'm already the problem for the rest of the world. Don't need this on plate.
It was an accusation by 1 person. So your idea is if 1 person makes an accusation against you, you are what that person says and its your job to prove your not? So if Tom calls you a racist you are a racist till you can prove to everyone your not? - mdw7413
I totally see your point and I agree. I just assume that the accusation of that one person was investigated before it was reported to the masses. I could be completely wrong about this and I admit that.
