HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Toronto Maple Leafs
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Kerry Fraser on Leafs Lunch for the entire hour

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-06-2009, 12:29 PM
  #26
eyeball11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 12,319
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lyrrad View Post
If a player is high sicked by the follow through on a shot than it's not a penalty.

Nothing else matters.

That's not true. A player is always responsible for their stick. If it were true, how do you explain this penalty on March 11, 2000?

http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin....cgi?H19990952

If you scroll down you'll see where Marion Hossa received a penalty for costing Bryan Berard his career on a follow through.

eyeball11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2009, 12:58 PM
  #27
lyrrad
Registered User
 
lyrrad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,246
vCash: 500
I'm basing this off what Fraser said. He said in that interview that one of the two ways a high stick isn't a penalty is if it happens on a follow through from a shot. It's up to the referee if it's a penalty in that particular instance.

He asked Dougie what happened and Doug told him it was on the follow through. He claims he didn't see the play himself so he asks his linesmen if they saw anything and none of them did. NOTHING ELSE MATTERS.

I don't understand how people are still demanding an "explanation" from a ref who has said constantly over and over that it was a blown call and that he made a mistake. He regrets the decision.

Stuff like this happens almost every game. It's been 16 years... let it go.

lyrrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2009, 01:38 PM
  #28
eyeball11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 12,319
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lyrrad View Post
I'm basing this off what Fraser said. He said in that interview that one of the two ways a high stick isn't a penalty is if it happens on a follow through from a shot. It's up to the referee if it's a penalty in that particular instance.

He asked Dougie what happened and Doug told him it was on the follow through. He claims he didn't see the play himself so he asks his linesmen if they saw anything and none of them did. NOTHING ELSE MATTERS.

I don't understand how people are still demanding an "explanation" from a ref who has said constantly over and over that it was a blown call and that he made a mistake. He regrets the decision.

Stuff like this happens almost every game. It's been 16 years... let it go.
When you see the picture of his unobstructed view of the incident, his "explanation" rings a little hollow (especially given how many things he says that are factually incorrect about the situation).

eyeball11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2009, 01:43 PM
  #29
Wendel17
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,218
vCash: 500
The NHL (Bettman) wanted Gretzky in the finals. Fraser was just following his orders. All they care about, all they have ever cared about, is chasing that elusive, and never to come to fruition, huge US TV deal. To this day they are still chasing it. They'll do whatever they can to satisfy their agenda. If it meant getting Gretzky in the final back then, or keeping Balsillie out of the league and keeping another team out of Southern ON now, then so be it.

Wendel17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2009, 01:54 PM
  #30
Down Goes Brown
Registered User
 
Down Goes Brown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 441
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendel17 View Post
The NHL (Bettman) wanted Gretzky in the finals. Fraser was just following his orders.
No, no, no...

There was no conspiracy.There was no order from the head office. There was just a ref who was faced with a tough call and choked on his whistle.

There's an old saying: "Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity". In this case, we should modify it to "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by cowardice".

Down Goes Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2009, 03:16 PM
  #31
lyrrad
Registered User
 
lyrrad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,246
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eyeball11 View Post
When you see the picture of his unobstructed view of the incident, his "explanation" rings a little hollow (especially given how many things he says that are factually incorrect about the situation).
I guess it all comes down to whether or not you believe him when he says he didn't see it. It's obvious that he had an unobstructed view, but that doesn't mean he was looking where he should have been looking when the high stick happened.

Nobody has reffed more games in the NHL than Fraser, so obviously there will be some mistakes along the way. That particular non-call had nothing to do with cowardice or conspiracy, it was more like incompetence.

lyrrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2009, 03:41 PM
  #32
eyeball11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 12,319
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Down Goes Brown View Post
No, no, no...

There was no conspiracy.There was no order from the head office. There was just a ref who was faced with a tough call and choked on his whistle.

There's an old saying: "Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity". In this case, we should modify it to "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by cowardice".
It also bears noting that if memory serves, Toronto's top scorer (Andreychuk) was kicked out of same said game early in the first period for a high stick that came down on someone's helmet.

Also worth noting that in that season, any high stick drawing blood, intentional or not, was an automatic penalty. It was the same as the year of the crease rule or the over the glass rule...it was called unequivocally...except once.

eyeball11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2009, 03:44 PM
  #33
eyeball11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 12,319
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lyrrad View Post
I guess it all comes down to whether or not you believe him when he says he didn't see it. It's obvious that he had an unobstructed view, but that doesn't mean he was looking where he should have been looking when the high stick happened.

Nobody has reffed more games in the NHL than Fraser, so obviously there will be some mistakes along the way. That particular non-call had nothing to do with cowardice or conspiracy, it was more like incompetence.

I have little problem with him not seeing it. That happens. I have a problem with him making things up (like being obstructed). The sticking point though was that as mentioned in my previous post (above), that season, all season long, they made it a point to call any stick violation that drew blood a penalty, regardless of intent.

eyeball11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2009, 03:45 PM
  #34
Trigger96
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 370
vCash: 500
If you watch the replay again very closely, it's clear that it wasn't off a "follow through"
Gretzky was trying to hook/lift the stick of Gilmour and missed.
I have a feeling Gilmour was being sarcastic when talking to Fraser about it. As if he was saying "ya sure Kerry, it was a follow through...right, whatever you say.."

Trigger96 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2009, 07:06 PM
  #35
Down Goes Brown
Registered User
 
Down Goes Brown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 441
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lyrrad View Post
I guess it all comes down to whether or not you believe him when he says he didn't see it. It's obvious that he had an unobstructed view, but that doesn't mean he was looking where he should have been looking when the high stick happened.
True. And if he said "look, I lost the puck when Gretzky shot it, I didn't realize Macoun had blocked it, and for a split second I glanced over at the net and I missed the highstick" then, well, I'd guess we'd just have to accept it. There are probably a million excuses like that he could come up with.

But he's not saying that. He's adamant that he was "obstructed" by "two big players" who just aren't there. Who knows, maybe he's said it so many times that by now he really believes it.

Down Goes Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2009, 09:44 PM
  #36
lyrrad
Registered User
 
lyrrad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,246
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Down Goes Brown View Post
True. And if he said "look, I lost the puck when Gretzky shot it, I didn't realize Macoun had blocked it, and for a split second I glanced over at the net and I missed the highstick" then, well, I'd guess we'd just have to accept it. There are probably a million excuses like that he could come up with.

But he's not saying that. He's adamant that he was "obstructed" by "two big players" who just aren't there. Who knows, maybe he's said it so many times that by now he really believes it.
Hahahahah... that has to be true! Either that or he's never heard of youtube.

lyrrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2009, 11:09 PM
  #37
Wendel17
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,218
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Down Goes Brown View Post
No, no, no...

There was no conspiracy.There was no order from the head office. There was just a ref who was faced with a tough call and choked on his whistle.

There's an old saying: "Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity". In this case, we should modify it to "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by cowardice".
Very possible that Fraser just choked on the call. But you gotta believe Bettman was shaking in his boots at the thought of an all Canadian final.

Wendel17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:43 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.