Quote:
Originally Posted by burnitdown
I get you're trying to be clever with your words but looking at whether more or less penalties were called on Wideman (who is the key guy in the conspiracy theory) is most certainly examining evidence of things that actually happened.
As for your talk of ignoring evidence, it's funny this article shows (but conveniently doesn't discuss) the refs are calling the same number of penalties against the other team pre/post the Wideman incident. Most complaints in the gameday threads regarding the Wideman conspiracy have been about the refs MISSING calls against the other team (constant slashes against Johnny, head shot to Tkachuk, etc.). This evidence you seem to value rules that out...
Either way, I'm sure we won't reach agreement on this. I just don't buy into far-fetched conspiracy theories that make us look like the whiny Canucks and Kings fans complaining about the NHL being out to get them.For the logic to even make sense, you'd have to assume the refs are smart enough to realize that taking it out on Wideman is too obvious...yet they don't realize people will see their secret revolt by calling more against the Flames instead. And of course, with their secret revolt, they'll only call more penalties against the Flames but won't dare call less penalties against the other team. I'd rather the story just die and we move on...
|
Your ignoring the most obvious answer. Subconscious bias is inherent in all of us. Refs are human. Read what Kerry Fraser wrote about Don Shoenfeld. It happens all the time. You honestly don't think Burrows stopped getting the benefit of the doubt?