Fire Mike Eaves?

[The Rube]

Re: Fire Mike Eaves?

You mean like when we got hooked twice on a breakaway with no call? Or when our guy was standing in the slot and got yanked to the ice with no call?

That's not really cheating, though. FTLT says so.

 

[Dude Love]

Re: Fire Mike Eaves?

That's not really cheating, though. FTLT says so.

When it's against us it's cheating!

 

[The Rube]

Re: Fire Mike Eaves?

When it's against us it's cheating!

It's cheating, but it's not REALLY cheating. Pay attention.

 

[Deleted member 3166]

Re: Fire Mike Eaves?

That's not really cheating, though. FTLT says so.

I said nothing of the sort.
It's all cheating, hence why it's a penalty, but are you really going to tell me there isn't a difference between a play that directly impacts a goal and a missed hooking call?

 

[The Rube]

Re: Fire Mike Eaves?

I said nothing of the sort.
It's all cheating, hence why it's a penalty, but are you really going to tell me there isn't a difference between a play that directly impacts a goal and a missed hooking call?

What if I interfere with a guy, before he shoots (but not OBVIOUS scoring chance) on an empty net. Who's to say? Cheating is cheating. You dug your own hole when you said there's "cheating" and "not really cheating." ALL of what we have talked about are rules infractions.

 

[Deleted member 3166]

Re: Fire Mike Eaves?

What if I interfere with a guy, before he shoots (but not OBVIOUS scoring chance) on an empty net. Who's to say? Cheating is cheating. You dug your own hole when you said there's "cheating" and "not really cheating." ALL of what we have talked about are rules infractions.

Yes cheating is cheating and I have not said at any time that there are things that are "not really cheating"
But if you can't acknowledge that there is a difference between a hook that's missed, or even the play that you are describing and throwing a stick to prevent a goal that has already been shot and can't miss without the stick being thrown, then I don't know what else to tell you.
There are degrees to everything in life and that includes penalties or infractions in hockey.
How is this so hard to understand?

 

[The Rube]

Re: Fire Mike Eaves?

Uncalled holds, trips or whatever do not directly prevent goals, what Rumpel did, directly prevented a goal.
It is illegal, it should have been called, so if it isn't cheating, then what is it?
What in your mind is the appropriate label for throwing your stick to prevent a goal?

Just for the record, your first point points out cheating instances.
The second point reinforces that throwing the stick is cheating (which we all agree on).
The third point is a question, that is a loaded one (of course it's cheating).

So it's all cheating. But apparently you only beech if it somehow could have cost a team a game. Cheating is cheating, son, I mean, girl.

Can you say, without a doubt, that goal would have gone in, and can you say, without a doubt, it was a thrown stick and provide conclusive (not opinions by networks) evidence of this? No. You cannot. I guarantee it. I'm not saying the refs made the RIGHT call, but was it CONCLUSIVE? Naw.

 

[MavHockey14]

Yes cheating is cheating and I have not said at any time that there are things that are "not really cheating"
But if you can't acknowledge that there is a difference between a hook that's missed, or even the play that you are describing and throwing a stick to prevent a goal that has already been shot and can't miss without the stick being thrown, then I don't know what else to tell you.
There are degrees to everything in life and that includes penalties or infractions in hockey.
How is this so hard to understand?

How hard is it to understand the stick was knocked out by the skate of the defenseman?

 

[Deleted member 3166]

Re: Fire Mike Eaves?

How hard is it to understand the stick was knocked out by the skate of the defenseman?

You can believe that and no I can't prove it wasn't and Rumpel would never admit to it, but I will never believe that he didn't throw it.
His reaction after it was called no goal, and his multiple explanations afterwards say all I need to know that he threw it and he **** well knows he did.
And Brent, while like I said I can't prove that he didn't definitively throw it, there is no way in hell that puck isn't in the net if his stick isn't there.

 

[The Rube]

Re: Fire Mike Eaves?

You can believe that and no I can't prove it wasn't and Rumpel would never admit to it, but I will never believe that he didn't throw it.
His reaction after it was called no goal, and his multiple explanations afterwards say all I need to know that he threw it and he **** well knows he did.
And Brent, while like I said I can't prove that he didn't definitively throw it, there is no way in hell that puck isn't in the net if his stick isn't there.

You can't prove it wasn't thrown conclusively. That's all I needed to hear, Jan.

 

[Deleted member 3166]

Re: Fire Mike Eaves?

You can't prove it wasn't thrown conclusively. That's all I needed to hear, Jan.

And you can't prove it wasn't, so whatever Marcia.

 

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: Fire Mike Eaves?

Find a different word FTLT. Cheating implies an intent to deceive to gain some unfair advantage. If you are on a break away and I hook you down to prevent you scoring, it is not cheating. It is specifically provided for in the rules that a penalty will result, and in that circumstance I have likely had time to make a judgement about whether I would rather let you shoot or take a penalty, and simply have chosen to take the penalty. It's even referred to as a "good penalty" in some situations. But it's not cheating.

In the case of a goalie throwing his stick, it is the intent of the goalie to stop the puck, not to deceive anyone. If I am caught out in the corner and wheel my stick ninja-style to the front of the net intercepting a puck, I am not deceiving anyone, or even trying to. I am simply stopping the puck. Period. The rules provide for a penalty in that case and it is up to the officials to apply the rules.

In the case of Rumpel, first of all, I have seen him drop his stick several times while simply watching play in the corner. He wields his stick lightly, like a magician holds a wand, not like a barbarian with a cudgel. In the split second that it took for the stick to come out there was not time to even consider his action or if it would be cheating to let go of his stick. He simply was attempting to stop the puck. My opinion is that given the way he holds his stick it was knocked loose, yours is he threw it. Fine. Blame the officials if you think they got it wrong, but don't call the kid a cheater. He's not Lance Armstrong. He was just trying to do his job.

The "grin" that you refer to as evidence of complicity, is more likely attributed to the fact that he said he watched the stick knock the puck wide "almost in slow motion". It was an astonishing turn of events, and no doubt the player at the center of it was even more astonished at the sheer luck involved that prevented the puck from going in. Getting out of it on sheer luck is not the same as purposefully cheating the game, but you are equating the two and labeling Rumpel, who is a fine player and a fine person off the ice as well as on, a cheater. It's a foolish notion and should be stated differently.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Fire Mike Eaves?

And you can't prove it wasn't, so whatever Marcia.

It's posts like these that make me rofl.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Fire Mike Eaves?

Find a different word FTLT. Cheating implies an intent to deceive to gain some unfair advantage. If you are on a break away and I hook you down to prevent you scoring, it is not cheating. It is specifically provided for in the rules that a penalty will result, and in that circumstance I have likely had time to make a judgement about whether I would rather let you shoot or take a penalty, and simply have chosen to take the penalty. It's even referred to as a "good penalty" in some situations. But it's not cheating.

In the case of a goalie throwing his stick, it is the intent of the goalie to stop the puck, not to deceive anyone. If I am caught out in the corner and wheel my stick ninja-style to the front of the net intercepting a puck, I am not deceiving anyone, or even trying to. I am simply stopping the puck. Period. The rules provide for a penalty in that case and it is up to the officials to apply the rules.

In the case of Rumpel, first of all, I have seen him drop his stick several times while simply watching play in the corner. He wields his stick lightly, like a magician holds a wand, not like a barbarian with a cudgel. In the split second that it took for the stick to come out there was not time to even consider his action or if it would be cheating to let go of his stick. He simply was attempting to stop the puck. My opinion is that given the way he holds his stick it was knocked loose, yours is he threw it. Fine. Blame the officials if you think they got it wrong, but don't call the kid a cheater. He's not Lance Armstrong. He was just trying to do his job.

The "grin" that you refer to as evidence of complicity, is more likely attributed to the fact that he said he watched the stick knock the puck wide "almost in slow motion". It was an astonishing turn of events, and no doubt the player at the center of it was even more astonished at the sheer luck involved that prevented the puck from going in. Getting out of it on sheer luck is not the same as purposefully cheating the game, but you are equating the two and labeling Rumpel, who is a fine player and a fine person off the ice as well as on, a cheater. It's a foolish notion and should be stated differently.

Owned.

 

[hockeykrazy]

Re: Fire Mike Eaves?

http://www.foxsportsnorth.com/pages/gopher_highlights?s=100375

Here is the replay, there is no skate near the stick. The Wisconsin defenders leg is going in the opposite direction and Murray's legs are too far away. The puck hits the stick after the stick is released and Rumpel said the puck knocked it out of his hand. There is a distinct motion with his arm outside, then back inside and then swinging out again when he let go of it.
Whether it was his intent or not to throw it may be another debate but it pretty clear that his swinging motion and release were before the puck hit it and like Wisc said he was trying to prevent a goal. The officials just basically blew the call.

 

[The Rube]

Re: Fire Mike Eaves?

It's posts like these that make me rofl.

Exactly. I don't HAVE to prove it. It wasn't called, therefore according to the game summary/recap/etc/etc, the "stick-throwing" never happened. He just lost his stick. That's it.

Lawyered.

 

[Gurtholfin]

Re: Fire Mike Eaves?

http://www.foxsportsnorth.com/pages/gopher_highlights?s=100375

Here is the replay, there is no skate near the stick. The Wisconsin defenders leg is going in the opposite direction and Murray's legs are too far away. The puck hits the stick after the stick is released and Rumpel said the puck knocked it out of his hand. There is a distinct motion with his arm outside, then back inside and then swinging out again when he let go of it.
Whether it was his intent or not to throw it may be another debate but it pretty clear that his swinging motion and release were before the puck hit it and like Wisc said he was trying to prevent a goal. The officials just basically blew the call.

Gorg says, "It gets knocked out" meaning his stick. The overhead view (which you don't have here for some reason ) CLEARLY shows the stick hitting Shulze's heal before coming loose. It's not even debatable.

You don't like the replay interpretation, whatever, but don't make **** up here.


C'mon Jan. For once, JUST ONCE in your life, be better than this.

 

[hockeykrazy]

Re: Fire Mike Eaves?

Gorg says, "It gets knocked out" meaning his stick. The overhead view (which you don't have for some reason) CLEARLY shows the stick hitting Shulze's heal before coming loose. It's not even debatable.

You don't like the replay interpretation, whatever, but don't make **** up here.


C'mon Jan. For once in your life, be better than this.

But Shulze's heal is going forward and in the opposite direction so even if it did hit it, it would not have gone in that direction. Rumpel clearly swings his arm in the direction the stick goes.

 

[Innova]

Re: Fire Mike Eaves?

But Shulze's heal is going forward and in the opposite direction so even if it did hit it, it would not have gone in that direction. Rumpel clearly swings his arm in the direction the stick goes.

Rumpel is swinging his arm in the direction the stick goes because he is trying to make a play on the puck. The stick hits a skate and gets knocked out of his hand.

 

[Tipsy McStagger]

Re: Fire Mike Eaves?

Gorg says, "It gets knocked out" meaning his stick. The overhead view (which you don't have here for some reason ) CLEARLY shows the stick hitting Shulze's heal before coming loose. It's not even debatable.

You don't like the replay interpretation, whatever, but don't make **** up here.


C'mon Jan. For once, JUST ONCE in your life, be better than this.

OH, GORG SAID IT? THEN IT MUST BE TRUE!

I want to see this overhead view you are talking about. I hadn't seen any replays before this, but now that I watch it, it looks like based on where Rumpel is holding the stick (halfway down the shaft) that Schulze isn't close enough for Rumpel's stick to hit his heel.