The title of this video is as accurate as Oiler fans intellect.
it wasn't a bad fight and I'd give a slight edge to Tkachuk but I really would have liked to see him tune Neal. Oh well. He'll have more chances!
Edit: Maybe I can't even give the sight edge to Tkachuk after watching it again. Did Neal buckle Matthew's legs at 28 seconds? Now I really want to see a rematch!
The title of this video is as accurate as Oiler fans intellect.
There are two memos at Sportsnet for on air talent, be it commentators or panel members.
1)Work McDavid and his skills, smarts, work ethic, into anything that remotely seems relevant. If he's done nothing all period, talk about how he does the little things away from the puck or motivates teammates through preservering after a tough shift, but it shows his hard work and commitment, or that his mere presence distracts the other team who are so focused on him as a threat so a plug on the 3rd line gets more ice. A guy like Draisital is just as potent and scores just as much, but gets 1/5 the air time McDavid does.
I've noticed too that both Cassie and Botteril have been given the panel role of being the people to shoehorn McDavid into a conversation the last few weeks, so it's clear they want to enhance their credibility by fawning over McDavid (while it's doing the opposite) and also having a different voice sing his praises rather then McLean or Amber all the time.
2)Go to similar lengths to paint Tkachuk as a villain and focusing on his failures and to keep the praise to a minimum. First really noticed it this year when Hughson did a game a month or so ago. His eyes were on Tkachuk, if he fell "he was trying it draw a penalty" and then when confusion on who got a delayed penalty immediately elicited "Is it on Tkachuk?" and Hughson's voice and tone of distain was clear a few addional times, attention that no other player got. And if he makes a good play, the commentators are quick to praise the other players that also made a play on the sequence in question, and sheepishly give MT any credit ...so the title of this video is a clear sign on the bias, whether it be real (maybe MT has shunned giving Snet the interviews it wants?) or for Snet to so desperately want a villian like a heel WWF character.
Last edited by browna; 03-13-2021 at 12:51 PM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to browna For This Useful Post:
it wasn't a bad fight and I'd give a slight edge to Tkachuk but I really would have liked to see him tune Neal. Oh well. He'll have more chances!
Edit: Maybe I can't even give the sight edge to Tkachuk after watching it again. Did Neal buckle Matthew's legs at 28 seconds? Now I really want to see a rematch!
Neal hit Tkachuk in the face a bunch during that fight.
Matthew got some licks in, but that’s a clear decision for the Real Deal.
Next time let Lucic fight him. Tkachuk doesn’t need to be fighting this much.
__________________ ”All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you.”
Rowan Roy W-M - February 15, 2024
The Following User Says Thank You to GreenLantern2814 For This Useful Post:
Neal hit Tkachuk in the face a bunch during that fight.
Matthew got some licks in, but that’s a clear decision for the Real Deal.
Next time let Lucic fight him. Tkachuk doesn’t need to be fighting this much.
Clear decision?
What are you watching?
It isn’t a boxing match counting points.
It’s not even close. Neal is flailing the entire time. Tkachuk manhandles him, tosses him around and almost dumps him into the Flames bench at one point.
It’s clear Neal is holding on and throwing Hail Marys while trying to defend himself because that is his only hope.
Neal hit Tkachuk in the face a bunch during that fight.
Matthew got some licks in, but that’s a clear decision for the Real Deal.
Next time let Lucic fight him. Tkachuk doesn’t need to be fighting this much.
Sorry, but I don't see it the same. I count things more for fist on flesh. Neal clearly landed more helmet shots but I thought Tkachuk contacted more skin. I didn't see Thachuk's legs buckle the first time I watched it though; I think Neal tagged him clean there.
It’s not even close. Neal is flailing the entire time. Tkachuk manhandles him, tosses him around and almost dumps him into the Flames bench at one point.
It’s clear Neal is holding on and throwing Hail Marys while trying to defend himself because that is his only hope.
I'm happy that one counted but I can understand why Oilers fans would be unhappy as there is no consistency with how officials call this play. We have seen so many where if the official loses sight of the puck for a millisecond they will blow the whistle even when the rebound comes right out after a shot. I think tonight's example is the way it should be done as the official should give it a second when he loses sight rather than blowing the puck when it's still loose. It's all about consistency and there's really none when it comes to this type of play which sucks.
The Following User Says Thank You to Erick Estrada For This Useful Post:
I'm happy that one counted but I can understand why Oilers fans would be unhappy as there is no consistency with how officials call this play. We have seen so many where if the official loses sight of the puck for a millisecond they will blow the whistle even when the rebound comes right out after a shot. I think tonight's example is the way it should be done as the official should give it a second when he loses sight rather than blowing the puck when it's still loose. It's all about consistency and there's really none when it comes to this type of play which sucks.
Most of the time when there is a quick whistle is when it looks like the goalie thinks they have the puck, and then given the positioning and angle of the ref, they blow it down if they lose sight of it and the goalie and players look confident that the goalie has it.
In cases like tonight where it's clearly a fire drill and no one appears to know where, or have control of where, the puck is, the ref will let the play go a few seconds longer. Plus the ref is right there on the goal line because the scenario allows him to get that close in this case, as opposed to if a shot is coming from the point or slot, he is in the corner much further away from the goalie.
I'm happy that one counted but I can understand why Oilers fans would be unhappy as there is no consistency with how officials call this play. We have seen so many where if the official loses sight of the puck for a millisecond they will blow the whistle even when the rebound comes right out after a shot. I think tonight's example is the way it should be done as the official should give it a second when he loses sight rather than blowing the puck when it's still loose. It's all about consistency and there's really none when it comes to this type of play which sucks.
How often have you seen an official blow the play dead when the puck is two feet away from the goalie? There is no legitimate dispute about this call.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
I'm happy that one counted but I can understand why Oilers fans would be unhappy as there is no consistency with how officials call this play. We have seen so many where if the official loses sight of the puck for a millisecond they will blow the whistle even when the rebound comes right out after a shot. I think tonight's example is the way it should be done as the official should give it a second when he loses sight rather than blowing the puck when it's still loose. It's all about consistency and there's really none when it comes to this type of play which sucks.
They usually blow it when they think the goalie has it but he was no where near the puck in this case. If an Oiler covers the puck in their own crease its a penalty shot so the ref is actually doing them a favor letting it go.