Duncan Keith making friends in Vancouver again...

[Dion]

In 1995, Heather McDaniel made news all over the country as the first woman to officiate a men’s professional hockey game. For a number of years she worked minor league games in the Central Hockey League and the West Coast Hockey League.

In 1999, she got pregnant and stopped working pro hockey. There hasn’t been a female referee in the men’s professional game since.

http://kuklaskorner.com/hockey/comme...ref_in_the_nhl

"At that point there wasn't really any women's hockey that could challenge me and help me hone my skills," she said. "The way I looked at it, I just wanted to move up the ranks. I didn't have this idea of male and female, I just wanted whatever was the best hockey to make me the best official. And there really wasn't much of a choice."

In the mid-'90s, girls' and women's hockey hadn't yet taken hold, so even the women's national championship tournaments were rinky-dink affairs when compared with the men's events. McDaniel got a shot in the USHL and worked her way up to the minor leagues, all the while downplaying her role as a trailblazer.

"It didn't even occur to me that I was doing something special until I showed up at training camp [for the CHL] and there were newspaper people and TV and radio people," she said.

McDaniel agreed that the physical demands of working the men's game can't be overlooked.

She was a referee in the minors, and therefore in charge of calling penalties, communicating with coaches and players, and acting as the on-ice leader of the officiating team. She says that working as a linesman would have been far more difficult, as linesmen are in charge of breaking up fights, restraining players and monitoring all the physical action on the ice. McDaniel said she had met some very strong male officials who struggled to keep up as linesmen because they were on the shorter side.

Winning the numbers game and keeping up physically aren't the only challenges female officials face on the men's side. McDaniel, who is now getting her Ph.D. in archeology, said many women aren't willing to give up family and other career aspirations to make officiating a full-time gig.

"Being a referee, you're on the road all the time," she said. "I found when I became pregnant with my son, I thought at first, 'I could do this,' but if you're a pro ref, you're on the road for three-quarters of the month. It's difficult to have a family.

"Also, a lot of these women are getting big scholarships from colleges and getting their degree while they play. They're well-rounded individuals. The hockey and the reffing is something that's a side endeavor for them, it's not a career."

http://espn.go.com/espnw/news-opinio...-long-shot-nhl

[FAN]

There's been a lot of "transcripts" floating about and you really got to listen to it yourself:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports...816349.mp3file

Here are my thoughts:

1) Keith was in a relatively decent mood considering his team just lost the game and there weren't any questions that riled him up before hand.

2) The female reporter's tone of voice didn't seem too friendly. Maybe she did this because she was a woman in a room full of men so I won't judge her. She really was unclear as to what she really was trying to ask. She seemed a bit intimidated once Keith asked her "What do you mean?" After Keith asked her "What are you talking about?" She seemed a bit peeved and didn't know what to say. She did gather herself quickly after. It didn't seem like she expected Keith to badger her as it seemed like she thought Keith was just joking with her (in a sort of flirting way).

3) Keith started out trying to answer the question the way he understood it "Well we scored one goal after that I think." When the female reporter clarified herself, something must have annoyed Keith as he started getting annoyed with the female reporter and gave her a snarky response and asked her what she saw. But then Keith seemed to go back to seriously answering her question and then suddenly Keith proceeded to badger her. If there was any "baiting" here, it's Keith baiting the female reporter into saying something that Keith can deride her on.

4) Maybe I'm a bit traditional, but I felt Keith was being a jerk. Ya maybe women should be treated equally, but you know he's a big grown man and she's a lady who wasn't exactly bitching at him. The professional thing and the gentleman thing to do was it let it go. He answered her question already and laughed at her question. No need to go out of his way to tell her she knows nothing.

5) There was incompetence on both sides. Not sure if this is true, but I've read reports that there was in fact a delayed penalty called. And since the female reporter can't skate, of course she couldn't play.

6) There was probably something in Keith's comments about her being the first FEMALE referee but we'll never know and this will blow over, and personally, even if Keith believes that female reporters have no place in a men's locker room I would think he's entitled to his opinion as it's a sensitive issue.

[HPLovecraft]

The Blackhawks have a bunch of jackasses on their team. This should be expected.

[Inglewood Jack]

i agree that any reporter male or female is fair game to be called out on asking stupid questions or being stupid themselves. but if the reporter was black or chinese for example and Keith said "hey why don't you become the first black/chinese referee in NHL history?" does anyone's opinion change? is that the same thing as joking about a female referee? I'm not sure, but I do think Keith did a little bit more than call out a bad question.

[Halfcreek]

The questions were poorly worded. If you want to ask the "tough" question - ask it, don't tiptoe around. I can see why Keith would be annoyed. Plus, when facing an opponent (which she made him when she brought up that line of questioning) you never show weakness.
Female broadcasters still have it tough in sports - she should never, ever, have admitted, in a professional locker room that she can't skate. Scott Oake was chastized for months after Kelly Hurdey and Co. played a clip of him skating like bambi - and he has been around forever. A fairly new (3 years is still fairly green) female reporter is definately going to feel the heat for that.
Keith showed emotion - why does media get all over that, when they also say they don't want to hear the usual cliches?
His only mistake was the female ref comment - but I don't even think there was sexist intent there - just trying to shoot something "clever" back at the reporter.
Good for her for not making a big deal about it and trying to move on. Too bad her coworkers and other colleagues couldn't have handled it with that kind of class.

[MikeMc]

I'm not sure how this is a 'thing', it's amazing how sensitive people are now or at least act as if they are. There seems to be an attitude that calling something out as offensive marks some sort of intelligence on their part.

"Look that's sexist. I'm offended"

Keith was annoyed. Was asked some stupid questions he didn't want to answer. He acted a bit like a tit, get over it.

[AR_Six]

Good lord there are a lot of stupid people on this forum.

The remark was clearly sexist because it implied that a) female refs would be inherently worse than male refs, and b) she is female and thus probably has never played the game, and doesn't know what she's talking about. However, it's easy to dismiss because while a dumb thing to say, it was said in the heat of the moment after a loss to a rival. I think we can give Keith the benefit of the doubt that he doesn't really believe that female refs are inherently incompetent, nor that being a woman means you haven't played hockey and don't know anything about it. That would take some pretty epic stupidity, dare I say comparable to a certain poster in this thread who shall remain nameless.

I was when I heard about this, and remain, more irked by the play itself. This is yet another incident in a long line of cheap, gutless plays by Duncan Keith for which he never pays a price. He has multiple intentional headshots on his record, and if you look at that slash, it was essentially pure intent to injure. There was no question of playing the puck or even hitting the stick, he just wanted to hit the puck carrier as hard as possible. The fact that there was no serious injury on the play does not make the act itself any less despicable. That guy is trash, not because of what he says but because of what he does.

[MikeMc]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

Good lord there are a lot of stupid people on this forum.

The remark was clearly sexist because it implied that a) female refs would be inherently worse than male refs, and b) she is female and thus probably has never played the game, and doesn't know what she's talking about. However, it's easy to dismiss because while a dumb thing to say, it was said in the heat of the moment after a loss to a rival. I think we can give Keith the benefit of the doubt that he doesn't really believe that female refs are inherently incompetent, nor that being a woman means you haven't played hockey and don't know anything about it. That would take some pretty epic stupidity, dare I say comparable to a certain poster in this thread who shall remain nameless.

I was when I heard about this, and remain, more irked by the play itself. This is yet another incident in a long line of cheap, gutless plays by Duncan Keith for which he never pays a price. He has multiple intentional headshots on his record, and if you look at that slash, it was essentially pure intent to injure. There was no question of playing the puck or even hitting the stick, he just wanted to hit the puck carrier as hard as possible. The fact that there was no serious injury on the play does not make the act itself any less despicable. That guy is trash, not because of what he says but because of what he does.

Well that's just intelligence-ist.

How was anything regarding female refs being inherently worse than males mentioned at all?

He was annoyed, which isn’t sexist.

He made a comment about maybe she should be a ref since she seems to know more about the play than the refs on the ice, which isn’t sexist.

Keith made a comment about how she’d be the first NHL female ref, which isn’t sexist.

He then commented that since she can’t skate she hasn’t played the game so likely doesn’t know what she’s talking about, which isn’t sexist and applies to any reporter who hasn’t played the game/can’t skate – not just female as you seem to imply.

You’re desperate to find something here and congrats on running with this deep investigation into Keith’s sexist dark closet. You’re clearly more annoyed with the player than his comments.

[AR_Six]

That's hilarious. You've parsed that so as to try to dodge the fairly obvious connection between "first female referee, probably never played either", and overlooked the fact that there was no reason to even MENTION the fact that she's female and there have never been any female refs, except to attempt to make that a disparaging statement about her. The intent was clearly to deride, and he used gender as part of the means of doing that. It was sexist. Full stop. It was nontheless excusable, because we've all said dumb things we don't really mean in the heat of the moment. That's all.

And yes, I believe I explicitly SAID I was more annoyed with the player than his comments. Several times.

[MikeMc]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

That's hilarious. You've parsed that so as to try to dodge the fairly obvious connection between "first female referee, probably never played either", and overlooked the fact that there was no reason to even MENTION the fact that she's female and there have never been any female refs, except to attempt to make that a disparaging statement about her. The intent was clearly to deride, and he used gender as part of the means of doing that. It was sexist. Full stop. It was nontheless excusable, because we've all said dumb things we don't really mean in the heat of the moment. That's all.

And yes, I believe I explicitly SAID I was more annoyed with the player than his comments. Several times.

I appreciate your clarity here, thanks.

Silly me i thought Keith's comment regarding "probably never played either" had something to do with the reporter telling Keith she couldn't skate. That connection seems pretty farfetched though, you're right.

Anyways, we are probably on the same page that it was a semi stupid comment made while annoyed at himself, his team and the game they just played.

Either way here is hoping the Hawks meet the Canucks in the playoffs.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

Good lord there are a lot of stupid people on this forum.

The remark was clearly sexist because it implied that a) female refs would be inherently worse than male refs, and b) she is female and thus probably has never played the game, and doesn't know what she's talking about. However, it's easy to dismiss because while a dumb thing to say, it was said in the heat of the moment after a loss to a rival. I think we can give Keith the benefit of the doubt that he doesn't really believe that female refs are inherently incompetent, nor that being a woman means you haven't played hockey and don't know anything about it. That would take some pretty epic stupidity, dare I say comparable to a certain poster in this thread who shall remain nameless.

I was when I heard about this, and remain, more irked by the play itself. This is yet another incident in a long line of cheap, gutless plays by Duncan Keith for which he never pays a price. He has multiple intentional headshots on his record, and if you look at that slash, it was essentially pure intent to injure. There was no question of playing the puck or even hitting the stick, he just wanted to hit the puck carrier as hard as possible. The fact that there was no serious injury on the play does not make the act itself any less despicable. That guy is trash, not because of what he says but because of what he does.

Point A) No it doesn't. He's implying because that person has never played the game, they'd be a bad ref. Gender does not come into that conversation.

B) The question was dumb, which is why Keith was reacting the way he did. The question itself would certainly lead someone on to believe the person asking the question was being either very biased or simply silly. "Setting up the play?" Jumping to the conclusion that Keith was reacting negatively to the question was due to the reporters sex, and not the merit of the question, is a lot more sexist than anything Keith said.

[rotten42]

The world is full of people just waiting to be offended. This is no big deal and the people offended are pussies with boring pathetic lives that have to latch on to things like this to make themselves feel relevant.

[Super Nintendo Chalmers]

Keith came out looking like a bit of a jerk but meh. I'd rather athletes show a bit of personality anyway.

I remember a reporter asking Jokinen how he felt post-game after the Zednik slash to the neck. Now THAT was a stupid question. I tried to find a youtube clip of it but I didn't find one that didn't show the slash too.

[Jordan!]

Hilarious.. hockey media is a joke.

Kudos to Keith, female or not.

[Super Nintendo Chalmers]

Originally Posted by Bouw N Arrow

Kudos to Keith, female or not.

Pretty sure he's not female.

[Stay Golden]

Its easy to say Keith should have said this or that because we are far removed from the situation. I was fine about his comment personally, but that is only because the reporter Karen Thompson came off as gloating about her Canucks and was whether she realized it or not prodding Keith a bit, because the Hawks have pretty much owned VAN but in this game the Hawks were getting outplayed.
If you listen to her tone its really antagonizing and that is not what sports reporters are trained to do she handled herself like a TMZ reporter.

Thompson however was not on the spot she had time to think about what she was going to ask Keith and it was one of the more stupid questions any reporter could come up with.
It makes me wonder does she even know the rules on a goal scored with regards to a penalty.
I think it would have been awesome if Keith said so let me ask you Karen do you think as the goal was being scored i should have gotten a penalty or a penalty shot should have been awarded?

She would have answered penalty or penalty shot. And Keith could have smugly said so on that play you feel that the goal should stand with an additional PP or a Penalty shot you really need to learn the rules before ask ridiculous questions.

or Just said who has better the judgement and experience to make a call you or a NHL ref and walk away from her.

or probably the best answer would be he scored are you serious with that question?

If Keith said everything he did to such a stupid uninformed question except adding the first female referee to her reply there isn't even any controversy from his part at all.
The story would be reporter asks really foolish question to NHL player apparently the reporter did not know the rules.

[Super Nintendo Chalmers]

Duncan Keith says no sexism intended in sharp comments to reporter

[EldrickOnIce]

I love emotional post game reactions to dumb questions
Claude Noel's was perfect the other night
"It's gotta be the dumbest question in the world"
http://video.tsn.ca/?dl=main/latest/1/0/911591/clip/0

[boggledepot]

Originally Posted by Super Nintendo Chalmers

Keith came out looking like a bit of a jerk but meh. I'd rather athletes show a bit of personality anyway.

I remember a reporter asking Jokinen how he felt post-game after the Zednik slash to the neck. Now THAT was a stupid question. I tried to find a youtube clip of it but I didn't find one that didn't show the slash too.

Lol... This comment reminded of a reporter asking Chris Pronger if he felt lucky, after taking the puck to the face that ended his career. Pronger made the snide remark: "do you feel lucky, punk"; then, qualified it could have been worse. But Pronger is standing there his face swollen and half blind, his career is going to be over because of a freak accident, and reporter asks him: if he feels lucky!"

Sometimes reporters not only ask stupid questions, but are incredibly insensitive towards the people they are interviewing--the same people, strangely enough, who giving up a moment of their time, to help reporters do their job.