Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan
I may be alone here but my view is that if anyone should be fired its the reporter who broke this "story" without, in my view, adequately fact-checking it.
Though I guess it's a lot less sensational to run with the headline: "According to one of two equally-reasonable interpretations of an obscure clause in the MOU the Flames might have had to put a player on waivers in a hypothetical scenario that can no longer happen." That might not have attracted as many eyeballs, but it would at least have been accurate.
People need to settle down about this. The clause is somewhat vague, but to me Feaster's interpretation of it is eminently reasonable in any case. There's really nothing to see here.
|
The reporter was on the Fan 960 on Friday. According to him, he was clarifying with the league whether or not O'Reilly would need to clear waivers to play for the Flames. They told him that O'Reilly would have to clear waivers if he had played in the KHL after the start of the playing season. He then went on to confirm that O'Reilly played after Jan 19.
Pretty sure from the reporter's point of view the league telling him the rules would constitute adequate fact checking.