Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
...Yeah I get that it's weird, that's what I've been saying all along, but his explanation at least aligns with the weirdness. Why bother going to be a third man in if you're not going to drop your gloves and all you do is try to wrestle a guy to the ice? None of it makes any sense to me.
|
Because it is entirely possible that Hamhuis independently chose to restrain Engelland when he saw that his teammate was in trouble? Even in this scenario, he was still the third man in, despite the fact that he didn't throw any punches. In such an event, it is still a far cry from responding to an official's instructions as has been claimed.
What I find troubling in your handling of this is how much weight you commit to your perception of the video footage. The video images themselves are products that are widely open to interpretation. There have been other posters' equally valid interpretations of the video record (including the visible distance from any of the referees that Hamhuis finds himself at the moment that he moves to engage with Engelland; a situation that quite reasonably calls into serious question Dorsett's explanation for the events) that you have flatly dismissed as "histrionics."
It's arrogant and shortsighted.
I agree that you
might be right about what happened (although I highly doubt it in light of the total absence from the history for any similar incidents of player deputisation). But what you seem to fail to acknowledge—and have even cast disparage upon—is the notion that you might be wrong. The problem here is not with your argument. It is with your seemingly incredulous response to criticism.