[Poe969]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

So, you haven't watched all of the full games on TV? Could this have possibly affected your evaluation of the playcall?

No, I don't usually get to watch games in full yet I still find some examples, much like one already pointed out about how Hughson said that Horvat would have bee a Calder candidate if he hadn't had a poor half of the season. That's like saying I would have been the best hockey player in the world if I didn't suck at it so much.

In some respects I'm lucky. I usually have games on in the background while at work, and with NHL Vault it's easy to navigate them to find things I want to see.

Because of the time difference here in Ontario, the games are on at late times and I can't just have them on. I'm on CP enough while at work, between actually working and coming on here I don't have time to do much else.


That's group-think in action. All of us are intuitive pattern constructing social conformists. We see, hear, and believe things more readily that others do, regardless of whether or not they are accurate or true.

So it must also be group-think that Hamhuis' hit on Bennett was dirty. There was only a minor penalty called and not a suspension yet most here think that it was a dirty hit but we must all be wrong because the league didn't suspend him.

It is not just "written" proof that you lack, you have no proof of any sort. Your feelings that are validated by invested fans do not constitute any manner of evidence to show that Hughson is calling with a demonstrable bias.

I gave an example of how "it seems" that he has more positive things to say about the canucks then he does about the Flames but since I don't take game notes of the broadcaster's comments or re-watch the games to collect examples for you, I will concede that my proof is lacking. I can only go off of memory and give examples of how he said things like the Horvat comment or how he didn't seem to think that Hamhius being the third man in was an issue.

Like I said earlier, it is undoubtedly difficult for him to completely quell his own very positive feelings about the Canucks because of his history. But even while some of this is bound to come through in his call, it hasn't been all that bad (outside of Game 2, which I thought was pretty bad). It's just such a tedious thing to complain about.

So you agree that it has been bad and you're only arguing for the sake of arguing....Ok, you're right, I'm wrong. That better big guy?