Red Mosquito

pnjguy wrote:

TBAMTS wrote:

Looks like Chara fending off that Toews & Kane line.

Was last night a dream? Still don't believe what happened.

They figured out how to neutralize Chara and series changed.

Congrats to Chicago. They were the better team. Boston had their chances and Chicago were able to turn them aside when it counted. Both teams had a lot of injuries and Chicago was better able to rise to the occassion. It was great hockey to watch and hopefully there'll be a rematch somewhere down the road.

All that said, totally not surprised to see Boychuck looking lost on the winning goal. I so wish Bruins would get rid of him. Trade him to Vancouver for Bieksa. Bieksa would make a great Bruin and Boychuck would help Vancouver's powerplay.

surfndestroy wrote:Congrats to Chicago. They were the better team. Boston had their chances and Chicago were able to turn them aside when it counted. Both teams had a lot of injuries and Chicago was better able to rise to the occassion. It was great hockey to watch and hopefully there'll be a rematch somewhere down the road.

All that said, totally not surprised to see Boychuck looking lost on the winning goal. I so wish Bruins would get rid of him. Trade him to Vancouver for Bieksa. Bieksa would make a great Bruin and Boychuck would help Vancouver's powerplay.

If Boychuck went to Vanc, he'd be even more hated after the hit on Toews.

Peeps wrote:i dont think the commish is nearly as incompetent as people make him out to be.

his job is to grow hockey as a sport not cater to those who feel entitled

im sure its the TV that dictates who they want to see on TV and that is their right since they pay an arm and a leg to brodcast it

if i have one complaint it is he should day fine, but you have to have each team on prime time at least once
better handling of suspensions

The handling of the former Winnepeg Jets franchise should have been enough to get anyone fired.

pnjguy wrote:

I don't get this mentality. Isn't it easier to take a loss when the team that beat you ends up winning it all?

cutuphalfdead wrote:

pnjguy wrote:

I don't get this mentality. Isn't it easier to take a loss when the team that beat you ends up winning it all?

For the most part yeah, but there are also those who take losing so hard that they want nothing other than the destruction and ousting of the team that ended their team's chance at a championship.

i think it has to do with Boston being a hated division rival

Yeah, that makes sense.

I just remember losing to the Yankees in 2003 and then seeing the Yankees lose to the Marlins in the WS and thinking "fuck, we totally could have beat the fucking Marlins"

But it was still pretty sweet to watch the Yankees lose.

It's also the Toronto Sun. They don't count.

we are also celebrating in philly, bryz has been bought out!

Fuck You Jobu wrote:It's to prevent the defensive team from taking a dive when they are getting beat on the play. But in Shaw's case, he was out cold and in Campbell's he got up and moved around, so he still in the play.

he got up b/c they wouldn't blow the whistle until his team had possession... also, it appeared to me that shaw took a dive precisely b/c he was beat by thornton, which is exactly what you're saying the rule is designed to avoid. i'm looking for consistency, and apparently there isn't any. like i thought.

shinkdew wrote:Because one got hit in the face and the other in the leg. If Shaw had lost an eye or died while the Bruins were scoring, it'd kind of make the NHL look bad.

seems like a stretch, but whatever you gotta tell yourself.

regardless, congrats chicago and blackhawks fans.

elliseamos wrote:

Fuck You Jobu wrote:It's to prevent the defensive team from taking a dive when they are getting beat on the play. But in Shaw's case, he was out cold and in Campbell's he got up and moved around, so he still in the play.

he got up b/c they wouldn't blow the whistle until his team had possession... also, it appeared to me that shaw took a dive precisely b/c he was beat by thornton, which is exactly what you're saying the rule is designed to avoid. i'm looking for consistency, and apparently there isn't any. like i thought.

shinkdew wrote:Because one got hit in the face and the other in the leg. If Shaw had lost an eye or died while the Bruins were scoring, it'd kind of make the NHL look bad.

seems like a stretch, but whatever you gotta tell yourself.

regardless, congrats chicago and blackhawks fans.

I'm not sure what you mean. Shaw wasn't moving. At all....

Again, if I'm a ref and I see a guy get up and moving around to play, even if he "appears" hurt, you have to let them play. Remember, no one knew it was broken. All they knew is he got drilled, which happens often, was slow (very slow) to get up and kept playing - including getting a stick on the puck.

I fail to see the inconsistency here.

Back to ratings talk

NBC drew a 5.6 overnight rating for Game 6, up 40 percent from last year's Los Angeles Kings clincher. From the numbers I have that go back through the years, Game 6 was the third-highest rated game of the current NBC era (2006-2013). Only Game 6 of the Blackhawks vs. Flyers series (5.8) and Game 7 of the Bruins vs. Canucks series (5.7) have had higher ratings in the last eight years.

Locally, numbers were typically colossal. NBC drew a 33.0 rating in Boston. That's pretty much even with the 33.3 for Game 6 in 2011. Game 7 drew a 30.2 in champion Chicago, down a bit from Game 6 in 2010 (32.8).

people get hit in the leg all the time and still stay out on the penalty kill


people do not get hit in the face gushing blood like a stuck pig

when marc staal got hit, whistle immediately
when crosby got hit in the face, whistle immediately
goalie gets his throat cut open, whistle immediately

suck it up princess

Peeps wrote:people get hit in the leg all the time and still stay out on the penalty kill


people do not get hit in the face gushing blood like a stuck pig

when marc staal got hit, whistle immediately
when crosby got hit in the face, whistle immediately
goalie gets his throat cut open, whistle immediately

where the hell did this come from?

the two puck-to-face situations you mention here were very different than what happened to shaw. for one, crosby was on offense, and two, staal's teammates had played the puck (just like earlier this year when mark eaton was hit and it wasn't until his teammate played it that the whistle blew). i'm not complaining, i'm just trying to understand the rules, which seem pretty vague.

to me, shaw gets hit, covers his face as he falls and stays down b/c i'm sure it feels like his face is broken. he's not "out cold" or "not moving", he's embellishing to get the call. it worked, good for him. it just seems odd that the play gets blown dead.

call me names peeps, but your post makes no sense.

embellishing?

you can just stop your "journey for justice" right there....

Peeps wrote:embellishing?

you can just stop your "journey for justice" right there....

oh lord. i've gotten my answer (there's no consistency, like most other rules). now crawl back under the rock you've been under since sidney choked.