Re: Fraser ex ref opinion ?
posted at 12/13/2013 2:30 PM EST
In response to Fletcher1's comment:
In response to stevegm's comment:
Textbook example of a thread going haywire because of a "look at me post" early on. This wasn't about blaming the refs for what Neil and Thronton did. That's someones stupid interpretation to stir the pot, so they can infer someone else is stupid.
The first post is pretty much copying what an ex ref had to say. The posters take on all of that is that the refs lost control of the game. If anybody takes exception to that.. the only arguable/debateable point is,...."did they, or didn't they? That's all there is. Neither option suggests they are to blame for what Thornton and Neal did specifically, and it's actually either dumb, antagonistic, or both to suggest that. That first post is pretty much hockey 101. Players do take exception to violent hits, and tempers escalate when serious fouls are ignored by officials. Does anyone want to areally argue that point? Does anyone really think that's bogus?
These "police" examples are way out in left field and don't apply either. Speed limits are concrete, and fouls in sport are more subjective(especially hockey). Making the point that anyone would be stupid enough to blame the cops for going 100mph is just a juvenile attempt to call the OP an idiot. Then everyone else jumps in, responding to what some dope wants the thread to be, not what it is.
If we want to use a cop analogy...2 guys are caught drag racing down a street going 100 mph. 34 more have their cars parked nearby, and are ready to get in on the action. The cop gives 1 guy a speeding ticket, a dangerous driving ticket, an undue care and attention ticket, which results in about a grand worth of fines, and a lost license. The cop lets the other guy go. S'pose that will result in a reasonable dispursement of the motorists and thwart the problem of street racing?
I think you make some decent points, but I totally disagree with the bolded line above.
It's just not true. The implication was that (a) the refs lost control of the game, and (b) that loss of control contributed to what happened. There are two variables to there to debate. Most people here argued with variable b.
I'm not really convinced of either one. I don't think the refs 'lost control of the game'.
As for the second part, I definitely don't think that the actions of Neal or Thornton fed off of what the refs did or didn't do prior to that. I think the refs had virtually no impact on the situation one way or the other.
No. without A, there is no B. You must believe A, before B could ever enter the conversation. B puts the cart before the horse.
Incidentally, I agree with you Fletch. I think it's an overstatemnt to suggest the refs lost control. Actually the term is an overstatement. Losing control trumps mere incompetence. They did blow some calls though, and that always leads to increased frustration, which elevates anger and aggression. What effect that had, who knows. It probably had some.
I'm not arguing opinions, just the practice of hijacking someones thought in an attempt to make them look stupid. The ex referee is inferring the officiating contributed to heightened tempers. The OP agreed, and decided to post it. Again, hockey 101, happens regularly. If opined by an ex NHL referee, it can certainly be wrong, but it hardly qualifies as hockey blasphemy unless it's turned around and overstated.