Home | Away

Random Thursday

Two things today.  One, I found this essay most diverting.  I mean, how can you not love an essay that begins,

With all the economic pain and consternation—surging unemployment, enormous corporate bankruptcy, trillions becoming the new billions—it’s easy to overlook the fact that tens of thousands of families have suddenly lost a great deal of the money they socked away to pay for college. They lost it because public officials told them to risk their children’s educational future in a casino run by idiots and thieves.

Read the whole thing, as they say on blogs.

Two, I went back and checked Ye Olde Rules of Hockey, which I haven’t consulted since I wrote this ancient post, and sure enough, there’s a provision in there that accounts for the seemingly inexplicable ruling on this play in game three of the Ducks-Red Wings series*:

78.5 Disallowed Goals—Apparent goals shall be disallowed by the Referee and the appropriate announcement made by the Public Address Announcer for the following reasons:

. . .

(xii) When the Referee deems the play has been stopped, even if he had not physically had the opportunity to stop play by blowing his whistle and even if the puck is in plain sight, in the crease, inches from the goal line, if the crease and goal line shall be those of the team from Disneyland.

There’s also a special rule for calling “interference” on Disneyland opponents even when they check Disneyland players who actually have possession of the puck.  I tell you, they think of everything!

56.1 Interference—A strict standard on acts of interference must be adhered to in all areas of the rink, except in Disneyland, where the Magic Kingdom will take you on an amazing journey into the world of imagination!

Go Wings.
______

* The commentary on the play is pretty good, except for the claim at 1:18 that “the whistle beats the puck into the net.” This is not true, as the replays show:  the puck crosses the line well before the whistle (see 1:20-1:21 and 1:30-1:31).  So it’s not a case in which the referee lost sight of a clearly-visible puck and blew the play dead before the goal was scored.  It’s a case in which the referee lost sight of a clearly-visible puck and intended to blow the play dead before the goal was scored even though the goal was scored before the whistle was blown.  One of the worst calls I’ve ever seen in my whole entire life.  Too bad it had to decide a playoff game, eh?

And so much for my Wittgensteinian argument in that ancient post.

Posted by on 05/07 at 11:22 AM
  1. That essay was diverting in the same way that having an exceptionally well-spoken and witty doctor give you the grim diagnosis might be diverting. I noticed it’s not “Random and Fun” Thursday.

    Posted by  on  05/07  at  03:04 PM
  2. Yes, this makes my whiny whine (comment 23 on the Round 2 post) on a possible uncalled tripping penalty on the go-ahead goal in Pens/Capitals game 2 look like the whiny whine that it was. I had seen this but did not realize that the whistle was in fact after the puck had crossed the line. Apparently, the officiating in the Chelsea-Barcelona semi in the Champion’s League was as controversial (although not on a disputed goal).

    Posted by  on  05/07  at  03:24 PM
  3. Well, as your whiny whine pointed out, the Pens had just come off Teh Worst Power Play (at least the worst PP since that of the Rangers), and Malkin really was guilty of a trip, and the Caps really did take all of four seconds to convert.  But the colossal badness of the game 3 Disneyland-Detroit officiating makes everything else look like a whiny whine.

    Hey, heard any good mustard jokes lately?

    Posted by  on  05/07  at  04:12 PM
  4. Regarding Chávezian Airspace, yes whenever I drive by or fill up at one of the many, many Citgo stations around the Chicagoland area I think of Comrade Chavez and how he must be thriving. Obama totally should have given Chavez a fist-bump which would have been the fist-bump that set a thousand conspiracy theories spinning. Go Hawks!

    Posted by Peter K.  on  05/07  at  07:54 PM
  5. Hey, heard any good mustard jokes lately?

    There isn’t enough Dijon mustard in the world a mid-sized supermarket to cover Alex Ovechkin.

    (And, wow! I had no idea at first what this was referring to. Go ahead and try to outsatire their reality, you can’t do it my friend.)

    Posted by  on  05/07  at  11:44 PM
  6. I have tried.  Moloch knows I have tried.

    Posted by Michael  on  05/08  at  12:20 AM
  7. I am trying to will the Red Wings to hold on and have Hossa enjoy his double revenge, but they apparently stay up ungodly late in Disneyland (probably so no one is awake to witness their flagrant wickedness).

    Posted by  on  05/08  at  01:04 AM
  8. Tonight all is well in the West.  The Black Hawks managed to remember how to shoot from 20 feet out, and the Red Wings have managed to make young Hiller question himself.  (C’mon, you can’t keep up a .989 save percentage forever!) So two of the Original Six march on.

    Next: go Bruins, go Penguins.  Let all these fine and scintillating series be tied at 2.

    Posted by Michael  on  05/08  at  01:23 AM
  9. Wings came out fired up.... fired up!  Will the Ducks be able to respond?  Will they bring their A game?  Will I have to pay another official off with 5 cases of Molson’s to get another blinky call?  Mercy.  Did I say that out loud?

    Playoff hockey is the best game around.

    Posted by  on  05/08  at  02:19 AM
  10. Can’t quite mustard the puck muster the pluck to fully follow the thread at this late hour, so it’s off to bed now.

    Posted by  on  05/08  at  03:32 AM
  11. A lot of mustard games coming up!

    Posted by  on  05/08  at  07:57 AM
  12. The NHL should have an overarching “Disney” rule under which to subsume its many “Disney” rule-exceptions, eh? Or would that picture hold us captive? “There are things,” I hear, “that cannot be put into words.” Perhaps the Disneyful magical elfin sprouty WIN is one of them. I’m hungry.

    Posted by  on  05/08  at  08:07 AM
  13. Hey, heard any good mustard jokes lately?

    I could take the bait and repeat my Warren Burger joke, but:

    (1) you did say “good,” and

    (2) careful readers of this blog would experience a sense of dijon vu.

    Posted by  on  05/08  at  10:25 AM
  14. Well, much as I hate to have a different opinion than Michael on anything, I kind’a hope the Ducks are going to win that series so I can go and see them get beat by the Hawks in person. I know, it’s very selfish and all. But there you go - while thepuppethead is trying to pay off the officials with booze, I’m going with Dijon mustard [captcha:] instead.

    Posted by  on  05/08  at  10:57 AM
  15. (1) you did say “good,”

    Yeah, we’ve set the bar pretty high so far.

    Posted by  on  05/08  at  11:26 AM
  16. Your article falls short in two areas. A referee blows a the whistle when he loses sight of the puck. Watson was at the absolute proper position to judge the play. He just could not see it slithering away from Hiller. He, unfortunately, responded properly. Secondly, it is not when the whistle blows. It is when he intends to blow the whistle. Weird, but true. Watson did the right thing at the wrong time. It is part of the game. Instead of crying over yesterday’s shortcomings, focus on tomorrow’s opportunities.

    Posted by  on  05/08  at  11:35 AM
  17. Hey, Adams, I do play the game, and I understand the “losing sight of the puck” part and the “intending to blow the whistle” part, as this very post suggests.  My point is that even though he was in the right position, Watson did not see a puck that was visible to absolutely everybody in Disneyland, with the possible exception of Hiller.  That’s what makes it a bad call—not a lapse in judgment, but a failure of perception.

    And once again, I see that Christian places his own interests above that of the One True Left.  The Red Wings!  United!  Will never be defeated!

    Posted by  on  05/08  at  12:18 PM
  18. When do we use intentionality in ordinary language? Well, not in anticipation of what we are about to do as in “I intend to respond to the NHL’s stupid intentionality rule.” Most often, intention is employed in response to an action that has gone awry, as in “I intended to shoot over his head.” Intention in the current instance is presented by an official who made a miserable call that cost Detroit the game.

    Posted by  on  05/08  at  01:30 PM
  19. Sorry, Michael, but the red wing of the party is in the process of being expelled for factionalism.

    Posted by  on  05/08  at  01:42 PM
  20. When do we use intentionality in ordinary language?

    I dunno, Chris.  What do you mean by that?

    the red wing of the party is in the process of being expelled for factionalism

    And this is precisely what Lenin criticized in Left-Wing Lock:  An Infantile Disorder.

    Posted by  on  05/08  at  02:31 PM
  21. I was at that game sitting above and behind the Ducks goal and we could clearly see the puck go in, and we all thought it was a goal until the referee started waving it off.

    Given the disparity in SOGs it was going to take something like that call for the Ducks to win. But it is the Magic Kingdom!

    Of course,with Holmstrom of the Wings elbowing Wiesnewski in the head while he was obviously in pain from just having suffered a lung contusion caused by a shot to the chest, there may have been some karma involved. Though I know there’s plenty of that kind of thing to go around…

    At least it’s not the Mighty Ducks anymore.

    Posted by  on  05/08  at  03:45 PM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


<< Back to main