Should be interesting. They will be taking calls the whole show.
The man has singlehandly created more sadness in Canadian Hockey cirles than any other person. He screwed us out of a Habs:Leafs final, and he screwed the Flames out of a Stanley Cup.
Not really. They took calls from Habs fans all hour, then acted surprised that nobody called in to really give it to him (hint: you choose who goes on the air).
Not really. They took calls from Habs fans all hour, then acted surprised that nobody called in to really give it to him (hint: you choose who goes on the air).
So essentially he sat there, and got smoke blown up his ass for an hour. Glad I missed it.
So essentially he sat there, and got smoke blown up his ass for an hour. Glad I missed it.
Yeah. Had one, maybe two calls from actual angry fans. The rest was Habs fans, so-called Leafs fans who didn't think the call was a big deal, and giggling over hair jokes. Oh, and some guy's rambling call about Wayne Gretzky's parking spot.
Bottom line: Fraser is sticking to the "I was screened on the play" defence.
Yeah. Had one, maybe two calls from actual angry fans. The rest was Habs fans, so-called Leafs fans who didn't think the call was a big deal, and giggling over hair jokes. Oh, and some guy's rambling call about Wayne Gretzky's parking spot.
Bottom line: Fraser is sticking to the "I was screened on the play" defence.
Yeah. Had one, maybe two calls from actual angry fans. The rest was Habs fans, so-called Leafs fans who didn't think the call was a big deal, and giggling over hair jokes. Oh, and some guy's rambling call about Wayne Gretzky's parking spot.
Bottom line: Fraser is sticking to the "I was screened on the play" defence.
As a general rule, I've never read blogs, but I started reading yours a few weeks ago. They're very witty, dry, and incredibly funny. Blogs don't last forever, but I can see myself following yours as long as it does.
As a general rule, I've never read blogs, but I started reading yours a few weeks ago. They're very witty, dry, and incredibly funny. Blogs don't last forever, but I can see myself following yours as long as it does. Keep up the great work.
Yeah. Had one, maybe two calls from actual angry fans. The rest was Habs fans, so-called Leafs fans who didn't think the call was a big deal, and giggling over hair jokes. Oh, and some guy's rambling call about Wayne Gretzky's parking spot.
Bottom line: Fraser is sticking to the "I was screened on the play" defence.
This was the exact pic I was thinking of as I listened to the show.
For one caller Fraser gave his version of the events. He said after it happened and he saw Gilmour cut on the chin, he went over and asked him what happened. Gilmour told him that Gretzky clipped him on the follow through. Fraser said that's not a penalty and then went over to the linesmen to ask them what they saw. None of them saw anything.
For one caller Fraser gave his version of the events.
At another point, he got quite specific, telling Brian Duff that "you'll see that there was an obstructed view off the faceoff, and two big players were in my line of sight."
Of course, you only have to watch the replay to see:
- The play didn't happen "off the faceoff"
- There aren't "two big players" anywhere near where Fraser is looking.
He also made an offhand comment about how Harry Neale needed five or six replays to see the high stick (implying that he wasn't the only one who missed it). But the very first words Neale says after the play are "It was Wayne Gretzky’s stick, Bob, I believe…". Again, you just need to watch the replay once to see that.
By the end of the interview, I kept waiting for Fraser to swear that he said "thanks but no thanks" to the bridge to nowhere.
I know it was a long time ago and Fraser deserves some credit for at least admitting it was a missed call that he regerts, but Leaf fans still don't have a good explanation for how something so obvious was missed.
At another point, he got quite specific, telling Brian Duff that "you'll see that there was an obstructed view off the faceoff, and two big players were in my line of sight."
Of course, you only have to watch the replay to see:
- The play didn't happen "off the faceoff"
- There aren't "two big players" anywhere near where Fraser is looking.
He also made an offhand comment about how Harry Neale needed five or six replays to see the high stick (implying that he wasn't the only one who missed it). But the very first words Neale says after the play are "It was Wayne Gretzky’s stick, Bob, I believe…". Again, you just need to watch the replay once to see that.
By the end of the interview, I kept waiting for Fraser to swear that he said "thanks but no thanks" to the bridge to nowhere.
I know it was a long time ago and Fraser deserves some credit for at least admitting it was a missed call that he regerts, but Leaf fans still don't have a good explanation for how something so obvious was missed.
could have been worse ...i.e. Brett Hull's foot in the crease Stanley Cup winning illegal goal. (talk about a screw job)
could have been worse ...i.e. Brett Hull's foot in the crease Stanley Cup winning illegal goal. (talk about a screw job)
True. Fraser/Gretzky is far from the only terrible call. The disputed Flames goal in the finals comes to mind too.
But at least in most cases, there's an explantion. It's either judgment-based ("the referee just didn't think it was a penalty") or you get some sort of rules-based explanation. Even the Sabres got a rules interpretation to explain the Hull goal. It was utter BS, but they got something.
With Fraser, we get the "obstructed view" defense that makes perfect sense as long as you never actually, you know, watch the play.
True. Fraser/Gretzky is far from the only terrible call. The disputed Flames goal in the finals comes to mind too.
But at least in most cases, there's an explantion. It's either judgment-based ("the referee just didn't think it was a penalty") or you get some sort of rules-based explanation. Even the Sabres got a rules interpretation to explain the Hull goal. It was utter BS, but they got something.
With Fraser, we get the "obstructed view" defense that makes perfect sense as long as you never actually, you know, watch the play.
Which is a similar explanation to the Buffalo one, isn't it? Seems like we got an explanation, it was just a very poor one.
Did the Fraser call in Calgary go upstairs?
I think the guy was a horrible referee, he just never seemed to make the right decisions, but as far as I can tell/remember, we got an explanation on the call.
True. Fraser/Gretzky is far from the only terrible call. The disputed Flames goal in the finals comes to mind too.
But at least in most cases, there's an explantion. It's either judgment-based ("the referee just didn't think it was a penalty") or you get some sort of rules-based explanation. Even the Sabres got a rules interpretation to explain the Hull goal. It was utter BS, but they got something.
With Fraser, we get the "obstructed view" defense that makes perfect sense as long as you never actually, you know, watch the play.
Fraser can say he was blocked out by Gilmour as he was slashed in the face, but, the Brett Hull goal was not excusable. this is the best explanation for those who are not familiar with it.
