Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis
The second part is why the NHL Playoffs are what they are though. You talk about "the other things" (I'll assume them to be emotion, grit, heart, toughness etc...) that are great but that the playoff calls (i.e non-calls) don't ruin much. But if the game isn't called the playoffs way, the other things aren't as prevelant. Like if the call today had gone the other way and it was no penalty, would there be a massive uproar? Only from Greece fans. Not many would have complained about that.
|
Emotion, grit, heart, toughness? Yeah some of those storylines are great, but the main thing about the playoffs is the super high quality hockey. It consists of the best teams trying as hard as they possibly can and often finding another unexpected gear. Kings / Hawks was, let's be honest, not a particularly gritty, toughness-filled series compared to many, but it might have been the best playoff series in a decade because of how damned GOOD the teams were, how experienced they were under pressure, and how hard they played. Nothing in that series would have been affected by calling penalties correctly and consistently, and really the refereeing on the whole wasn't bad in those 7 games.
I think it would have been a minor controversy... the reason there might not have been much uproar is that very few people care about these teams. If it had been England or Brazil or France? No one would have shut up about it for a week. Even so, this is silly; you want a ref to decide not to make a call on the basis that it won't cause a massive uproar? I continue to be absolutely baffled by your line of thought.