Shannahan, you are a joke. What about these?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from orr4neely8. Show orr4neely8's posts

    Re: Shannahan, you are a joke. What about these?

    The first year for Shanny will get keep hockey irrational and disarray. My opinion is he will be off on his judgements. After his first year doing the axe treatment and trying send a message that he means business. Next year after he reevaluates his first term he will have a better understanding and be more balance with his decisions.

    Unfortunately all the teams and fans in the NHL are saying the same thing. Personally , I  was expecting 2 gms the most but what can I do. Just like weather Shanny is coming in like a lion but will come back a lamb next year. The NHL is a very unbalance sports league and must change to make it a clean physical sport.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from MeanE. Show MeanE's posts

    Re: Shannahan, you are a joke. What about these?


    Posted by stevegm[/QUOTE]

    Excellent Post Steve!  
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Shannahan, you are a joke. What about these?

    In Response to Re: Shannahan, you are a joke. What about these?:
    [QUOTE]i'm moving on....until i see another check just like marchands, and hear what the league says/ doesn't say.
    Posted by adkbeesfan[/QUOTE]

    How about last night.  Bieksa tries to submarine Moore.
    No penalty, and the hockey world is silent to this point.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Shannahan, you are a joke. What about these?

    Steve, I don't know if you reside in Canada or the US but could you show me some examples where judges get fired for not doing their jobs ? Where I grew up and where I reside now it almost takes an act of god to remove a robe from a judge becuase they are so protected by the law they helped right as former district attorney's.

    If you would rather have a former attorney, a real "Suit" do this job or an ex player who needed the NHL job as a disciplinarian for the money because he didn't make any money as a player then I feel for you. Shanahan doesn't need this job like Colin does or did. Brendan could do anything he wants with the money he made through his career. So for you to suggest that he doesn't know what to look for in a rules book is laughable because of the years he played in the league.


    I'm sure Bettman could find plenty of clueless attorneys in New York who work for the NBA or comb some hockey history books for ex-NHL'ers who would hold grudges against current players that are better than they were and made more money than Colin Campbell types.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Shannahan, you are a joke. What about these?

    In Response to Re: Shannahan, you are a joke. What about these?:
    [QUOTE]Steve, I don't know if you reside in Canada or the US but could you show me some examples where judges get fired for not doing their jobs ? Where I grew up and where I reside now it almost takes an act of god to remove a robe from a judge becuase they are so protected by the law they helped right as former district attorney's. If you would rather have a former attorney, a real "Suit" do this job or an ex player who needed the NHL job as a disciplinarian for the money because he didn't make any money as a player then I feel for you. Shanahan doesn't need this job like Colin does or did. Brendan could do anything he wants with the money he made through his career. So for you to suggest that he doesn't know what to look for in a rules book is laughable because of the years he played in the league. I'm sure Bettman could find plenty of clueless attorneys in New York who work for the NBA or comb some hockey history books for ex-NHL'ers who would hold grudges against current players that are better than they were and made more money than Colin Campbell types.
    Posted by SanDogBrewin[/QUOTE]

    I reside in Canada.  No disrespect, but i've written plenty about this subject, and the spirit in which I'm attempting to make my points doesn't hone in on Canadian, or US judges, although, there are plenty of examples in both countries where judges are axed due to poor judgement. I think a recent example is the family court judge in Texas, being removed for beating his daughter. The crux being, how can we trust a guys judgement in family matters, when he treats his own family like crap.
      Anyway, that isn't the point, and I really have no interest in debating that.  I'm not suggesting lawyers/judges run the sport.  I'm not suggesting anything about who does or doesn't need the job/money.  I'm not talking about clueless attorneys in New York. I'm not playing a Bettman card here to further convolute things.

      Gee !!!   I don't know how anyone could possibly attempt to distort what I'm actually saying here....any more than your comments above.  

    What I'm suggesting is that anyone in a high paying, private/public sector position, which carries a great degree of power and influence, working a very public file, that should serve as precedent.........Anyone making the decision Shannahan did...a decision so easy, a child should have figured out.....proves he is totally incompetent, and would be fired.

    And..before you start attempting to pick more fly sh*t out of pepper, please be advised there is a bit of hyperbole in that statement.  I don't mean every single person of power always makes the right decision, and everyone would get fired for making a bad one.....it's a general comment...kind of an exclamation point on my assertion that Shannahan has shown he is hopelessly incompetent. 
    That's the jist, and most get it.

    There is only one line in your above post which has anything whatsoever to do with anything I've written on this subject:
    "...for you to suggest that he doesn't know what to look for in a rules book is laughable...." 

    That's the only thing you've said, that's of any relevance whatsoever. To say thats "laughable" suggests you disagree vehemently.

    Allow me to answer.  Again.
     I've stated my logic more than once here.  It's black and white, and by the way, that is supposed to be the job of anyone dispensing judgement.  You take the rules, and the evidence, and you make that black and white.
    Shannahan "proved" he doesn't know what to look for in a rule book, when he went outside of the rulebook to justify his decision.  The hit in question, was conclusively above the knees, so according to the NHL rules of fair play, it was a legal hit.  End of Story.  Shannahan's following address, was even dimmer.  Whether the hit was predatory, is nothing more than fluff.  It's irrelevant.  This is clearly a make-up call, and that should never come from the league office.  The most basic grasp of critical thinking makes this one crystal clear.
    Not because I'm right...or I need to win...but because the answer lies right in front of us.  The NHL rule book.
    Let me delve further into the fundamental, inexcusable flaw here, and explain  how a reasonable, thorough, professional, but not overly academic individual would have made this black and white, and caused no negative repurcussions for the league down the road.
    1.  The league isn't obliged to uphold the referee's interpretation of a penalty when dispensing supplemental discipline.  e.g.  player gets taken into the boards,  injured badly.  Other guy gets boarding call, ejected, and now he's being reviewed for discipline.  Replay shows it's a very "regular hit", and the real issue is an elbow to the head. A reasonably inteligent adjudacator will start with "while we find the offense to be an elbowing infraction, not a boarding infraction....."
    This clears the way for the honest,meaningul evolution of rules of engagement and player safety.
    2.  Why, because it puts the onus where it needs to be.  If this isn't done, the increased source of debate, and drama becomes "what exactly is boarding?"  This guy got hit harder than that guy, why isn't he suspended.  The game doesn't move forward, problems aren't solved, they're created.
    3.  Thanks to Shannahans clear misunderstanding of, not only the rules, but his position within the industry, no one has any idea what is legal, regarding the hip.
    He is totally incorrect in attempting to justify this as a clip.  Conclusively it isn't, and that causes big problems for himself, and the league, down the road.
     4.  There's an article in the Vancouver Province a couple days ago, that reads something to the effect of  NHL not putting up with any more of BM's antics.  It goes into some detail of the "clip", and Brandon's childish explanation.
    For you, and anyone else reading this, watch Bieksa's hit on Moore, Tuesday night.  Then go watch BM's on Salo.  You'll see the point of impact is roughly the same, around the lower buttocks.  Read the newspaper article again, and tell me that you couldn't replace Marchands name with Bieksa's, and have a pretty logical story.  Yet, Bieksa gets, no penalty ...nothing.  Cripes, the precedent is only a couple days old, and this isn't even a penalty?  Isn't Bieksa acting predatory here?    A trip is a trip, they're all different, but we know one when we see one.  Same as a clip...only now, nobody knows.  Despite the rulebook being very, very clear.
    5.  Some will say, oh...it doesn't matter.  BM had it coming, it's just semantics.
    Uh uh.  One is vigilantisim, the other isn't.  One is smart, one is dumb.  One deals with sh*t, the other just creates more of it.
    6.  If Brendon had just a little bit of smarts, he would have said, "while we don't see the infraction as clipping, we're unanimous in our decision this was a deliberate attempt to injure".  In this situation, he's playing by the rules, cementing his authority to do what he feels is necessary, and providing consistent leadership.  The rules, and they're interpreatation are very clear.

    That's why I think Brendan's a dope.  I've explained it in detail, more than once here.  I've not seen one ounce of back up from any of those who feel he is doing a good job.
    If you disagree, or would like to debate, I'd be interested in your take.
    Please stick to the topic.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Shannahan, you are a joke. What about these?

    "I think a recent example is the family court judge in Texas, being removed for beating his daughter." Nothing to do with an arbitrary judge, Nothing.

    For future reference don't apologize for citing something you didn't intend for me to read. You also have not told me once who you would rather have other than a dope of a HOF NHL player (as you state) or a "suit" like Colin Campbell.

    Judges do not get fired often that is why I asked you that question and neither should Shanahan for giving too many games to a player on you favorite team. No one would please you Steve in this situation that is apparent, OK well thanks for the input.
     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Shannahan, you are a joke. What about these?

    In Response to Re: Shannahan, you are a joke. What about these?:
    [QUOTE]I really don't see how he's any better than Campbell.  Of all the reviews, regarding Bruin players over the last year or so, this was the clearest.  This type of hit happens with some regularity elsewhere in the league(especially Vancouver), and in BM's case, it's conclusive he didn't take out Salo "at or below the knees".  No one can argue that point.  Therefore, it's not a clip, it's not even a penalty.  If the league wants to take that hit out of the game, that's their right.  Change the rules...let everyone know it's a suspendable offense, and suspend the first guy that breaks the rules. Campbell may have let a few things slide, but at least he didn't make up the rules as he went. Shannahan, and the league are showing they posess the judgement of a pre-teen. 
    Posted by stevegm[/QUOTE]
    I agree with this entirely.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Shannahan, you are a joke. What about these?

    In Response to Re: Shannahan, you are a joke. What about these?:
    [QUOTE]"I think a recent example is the family court judge in Texas, being removed for beating his daughter." Nothing to do with an arbitrary judge, Nothing. For future reference don't apologize for citing something you didn't intend for me to read. You also have not told me once who you would rather have other than a dope of a HOF NHL player (as you state) or a "suit" like Colin Campbell. Judges do not get fired often that is why I asked you that question and neither should Shanahan for giving too many games to a player on you favorite team. No one would please you Steve in this situation that is apparent, OK well thanks for the input.
    Posted by SanDogBrewin[/QUOTE]

    San, I don't understand your comment about the judge in Texas, but I'll assume you're right. I don't understand the apology reference. I'll give ya that too.
    I agree judges aren't fired all the time.
    I didn't tell you "who I would rather have", for 3 reasons.  It wasn't part of the conversation....you never asked me,... and it's irrelevant.

    Sometimes the longer these things go, the further off topic they get.  Originally, I think you disagreed with my position that Shannahan is "not" doing a good job overall, of over seeing league discipline.
    My position is pretty straight forward.  If a doctor doesn't know what tylenol is....it's pretty hard to consider him a capable doctor. Shannahans handling of this thing we're talking about, is kindergarten level suplemental discipline.  He flunked.  The rule book, not the argumentive stevegm drives that point home.

    "too many games to a player on your favorite team".  What is that supposed to mean?   That I'm a blind homer that is incapable of comprehending reality? Geez, I already said I'd have had no problem with suspensions on the slew foot, and Lucic-Miller.
    I think that insinuation is kinda rude.
    Finally, unequivocally stating that "no one would please me in this situation", is complete horsesh*t, and a feeble attempt to throw more smack my way.  Can't 2 people have a spirited conversation about something without this nonsense?  If you read my posts instead of dreaming up ways to salvage an argument you boisterously said you'd embarras me on....you'd see that I explained in detail "why" I felt he was incompetent, and exactly "what" would have been a reasonable approach instead.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Shannahan, you are a joke. What about these?

    " I'm sure he's making as much as any judge in the country.  He has a responsibility to know the laws of the game...inside out, and respond with wisdom and fairness. He'd be fired in the real world. Referee's can do make up calls.  Judges can't."

    Pure rubbish saying you didn't say judges get fired all the time and you brought up the judge beating his daughter not me which has nothing to do with a judge getting fired for a poor ruling.

    Good luck with carrying the torch for Colin Campbell and speaking of reading posts. I never said I would burry you in a debate that is a complete lie! I said I would have a field day with you for mentioning Colin Campbell interprets the rules more clearly than Shanahan so get your story's straight.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Shannahan, you are a joke. What about these?

    In Response to Re: Shannahan, you are a joke. What about these?:
    [QUOTE]" I'm sure he's making as much as any judge in the country.  He has a responsibility to know the laws of the game...inside out, and respond with wisdom and fairness. He'd be fired in the real world. Referee's can do make up calls.  Judges can't." Pure rubbish saying you didn't say judges get fired all the time and you brought up the judge beating his daughter not me which has nothing to do with a judge getting fired for a poor ruling. Good luck with carrying the torch for Colin Campbell and speaking of reading posts. I never said I would burry you in a debate that is a complete lie! I said I would have a field day with you for mentioning Colin Campbell interprets the rules more clearly than Shanahan so get your story's straight.
    Posted by SanDogBrewin[/QUOTE]


    Obviously, with 8880 something posts, and your track record with me on this subject, you enjoy talking more than reading/listening.
    Most people understand that when comparing a court judge, to a hockey person in charge of justice...there are huge differences.  The common bond is their responsibility to rule fairly and within the law as they pertain to each case. I didn't think you'd be so insistent as to take a hockey debate, in the direction of the job security of US or Canadian judges, and refuse to get back to hockey.
    Anyway, you correctly pointed out that the Texas judge wasn't fired for a "poor ruling", it was in fact for proving he had "poor judgement".   I think that's pretty close, however, when taken extremely literally, you're right...I'm wrong, and I was pretty dumb in even responding to that crap in the first place. 
       
     Everything we've discussed is right here on this thread. Why are you so insistent on making a tool of yourself by misinterpreting or misrepresenting 99% of what I write....when it's so incredibly easy to merely check back !!
    There is absolutely nothing in anything I've written, that suggests I'm carrying a "torch" for Colin Campbell.  I merely emphatically stated my opinion as to why Shannahan is "not" doing a better job than Campbell, and I backed  up my opinions, extensively, something you never had the courage to do.  To opine that A is no better than B, is not a raving approval of A.  Most 9 year olds can get that.
    And this "bury you in a debate that is a complete lie"... comment.  What a dumb, off topic statement is that?  Of course it's a lie, but it's yours, not mine, cuz it was never said.  When someone says they'll have a "field day" with your comments, that's saying they will completely decimate your logic..and that would be embarrasing to anyone with an ounce of self awareness. I used the word "embarass", and that's not altering the spirit of what you said.

    You haven't had a "field day".  I've gone into great detail outlining my logic, and although you're not obligated to agree, you're obligated to provide logic backing your own position if you expect to continue the conversation.  You've not provided one teeny piece of reasonable logic as to why you think Shannahan is doing a "better job than Campbell".  You've nit-picked, and made-up things that are not even germain to the topic, when reading my posts, but you've brought nothing except hot air to support your position... nothing !  
    Instead of a "field day" debating a hockey topic, you've made a fool of yourself with your lame, irrelevant, off topic responses.   If this were a junior high debating exercise, you'd not only flunk...you'd be expelled.   
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Shannahan, you are a joke. What about these?

    Sorry to bump this up but I really like this video.....probably the best evidence of Marchand being punised too harshly. Note O'Rourke was the ref in both circumstances. 1 is "clean" and the other is "dirty". Hard to tell which is which.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10scJ5fWpeE
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from 86redsox. Show 86redsox's posts

    Re: Shannahan, you are a joke. What about these?

    Byers hit last night should get 10 games.
    sorry for the bump but this is the latest:

    http://www.hockeyfights.com/fights/108795
     

Share