Jump to content
The Official Site of the Montréal Canadiens
Canadiens de Montreal

Recommended Posts

I was reading on another site where they expressed that the calls and conversations between the on ice officials and the replay booth in Toronto should be open so the viewers could hear and understand the conversation.  I would whole hardheartedly agree with this as I believe it might more accountability to the review team as well as make it public knowledge as to who is actually make the calls and why

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 26NCounting said:

I was reading on another site where they expressed that the calls and conversations between the on ice officials and the replay booth in Toronto should be open so the viewers could hear and understand the conversation.  I would whole hardheartedly agree with this as I believe it might more accountability to the review team as well as make it public knowledge as to who is actually make the calls and why

Yep. Doesn't help that the Situation Room is staffed exclusively by execs from Ontario. Every single one of them was born in Ontario. And to boot, one of the guys in charge is Colin Campbell, and he's an idiot and a Bruins fan. Would be nice if there was more transparency, although consistency needed more than transparency. That video of Price being dragged to the corner against the Rangers a few years ago is all over the internet and that was deemed legal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

Yep. Doesn't help that the Situation Room is staffed exclusively by execs from Ontario. Every single one of them was born in Ontario. And to boot, one of the guys in charge is Colin Campbell, and he's an idiot and a Bruins fan.

I don't understand why where you were born determines whether or not you are competent or an idiot.  On first reading it I thought Rejean Tremblay would probably understand the birthplace inference but I don't.

There are Montreal Canadien fans that were born everywhere in the world, a lot of them even live outside of Quebec and a lot of them are fair minded, competent individuals. I believe that fans of all teams can also be fair minded and competent regardless of their birthplace.

Eight Montreal players were born in Ontario, is that the reason we have losing records against Ottawa and Toronto so far this year?

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You wouldn't believe the laffs goal tonight. Cal goalie + 3 Cal players, and 3 laffs  close or in the paint. laffs score. and it counts. No challenge and the refs didn't even pull out the tablet. :wut2:

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RCAF48 said:

I don't understand why where you were born determines whether or not you are competent or an idiot.  On first reading it I thought Rejean Tremblay would probably understand the birthplace inference but I don't.

There are Montreal Canadien fans that were born everywhere in the world, a lot of them even live outside of Quebec and a lot of them are fair minded, competent individuals. I believe that fans of all teams can also be fair minded and competent regardless of their birthplace.

Eight Montreal players were born in Ontario, is that the reason we have losing records against Ottawa and Toronto so far this year?

I didn't say anything about birthplace making you an idiot. I said Colin Campbell was an idiot, and that's based on how incompetent he was issuing player suspensions back in the day and how he clearly favored the Bruins when his son was playing there.

As for the Ontario part of things, only pointing out that the Situation Room where they're making these calls is stocked with a bunch of guys from Ontario. No idea whether they're Leafs or Sens fans or otherwise, but

1. The odds that they're Leafs/Sens fans is higher. Yes, there are Habs fans all over, but a higher percentage of people from Quebec are Habs/Nords fans than people from Ontario or Alberta or New York.

2. It doesn't help the optics of how these decisions are being made when it's literally a black box of guys with the exact same background. They can't find a mix of people from the US or Europe or other parts of Canada?

I don't know that it would help any because Quintal was in charge of DOPS and he did a horrible job there too, but as I said, it doesn't help the optics when the decisions seem so random and when this particular one seemed to go in favor of Ottawa and against Montreal and then you find out it was made by a bunch of guys from the other team's home province. There's a perception of possible bias, whether or not that affected the decision. And before anyone says that this is impossible, we all know it does happen, be it on purpose or subconsciously. Joe Thornton spoke out once about how the league clearly favors the Rangers and Bruins in its decisions and he said it was a known thing amongst players. We know those are big American markets and that their owners were chummy with Bettman. We know Campbell's son was a Bruin at the time. And again, I've heard people who know Tim Peel say that he's a Leafs fan and absolutely hates the Sens and Habs. We've had incidents with several refs being recorded yelling obscenities at players and admitting they don't like them. We have NBA refs found to have been paid to tilt games certain ways. So I don't for a second believe the entire league has no one corrupt.

At the end of the day, everyone knows the league has a problem with consistency with penalty calls and suspensions and goalie interference and so on. And I honestly wonder if they leave things purposely vague in their rulings so that they have more leeway to just make case by case decisions and justify them however they want. Oh, Ovechkin or Chara threw a dirty hit but we want them to stay in the games, so we'll just say that the player tilted his head 8 degrees 0.3 seconds before the hit and therefore it was unavoidable. Oh it was Evander Kane who threw the hit, well then he started his hit process 0.6 seconds after the puck was gone and that makes it late despite the head tilt. They need to tighten up their rulebook and they simply don't and don't have any incentive to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

I didn't say anything about birthplace making you an idiot. I said Colin Campbell was an idiot, and that's based on how incompetent he was issuing player suspensions back in the day and how he clearly favored the Bruins when his son was playing there.

As for the Ontario part of things, only pointing out that the Situation Room where they're making these calls is stocked with a bunch of guys from Ontario. No idea whether they're Leafs or Sens fans or otherwise, but

1. The odds that they're Leafs/Sens fans is higher. Yes, there are Habs fans all over, but a higher percentage of people from Quebec are Habs/Nords fans than people from Ontario or Alberta or New York.

2. It doesn't help the optics of how these decisions are being made when it's literally a black box of guys with the exact same background. They can't find a mix of people from the US or Europe or other parts of Canada?

I don't know that it would help any because Quintal was in charge of DOPS and he did a horrible job there too, but as I said, it doesn't help the optics when the decisions seem so random and when this particular one seemed to go in favor of Ottawa and against Montreal and then you find out it was made by a bunch of guys from the other team's home province. There's a perception of possible bias, whether or not that affected the decision. And before anyone says that this is impossible, we all know it does happen, be it on purpose or subconsciously. Joe Thornton spoke out once about how the league clearly favors the Rangers and Bruins in its decisions and he said it was a known thing amongst players. We know those are big American markets and that their owners were chummy with Bettman. We know Campbell's son was a Bruin at the time. And again, I've heard people who know Tim Peel say that he's a Leafs fan and absolutely hates the Sens and Habs. We've had incidents with several refs being recorded yelling obscenities at players and admitting they don't like them. We have NBA refs found to have been paid to tilt games certain ways. So I don't for a second believe the entire league has no one corrupt.

At the end of the day, everyone knows the league has a problem with consistency with penalty calls and suspensions and goalie interference and so on. And I honestly wonder if they leave things purposely vague in their rulings so that they have more leeway to just make case by case decisions and justify them however they want. Oh, Ovechkin or Chara threw a dirty hit but we want them to stay in the games, so we'll just say that the player tilted his head 8 degrees 0.3 seconds before the hit and therefore it was unavoidable. Oh it was Evander Kane who threw the hit, well then he started his hit process 0.6 seconds after the puck was gone and that makes it late despite the head tilt. They need to tighten up their rulebook and they simply don't and don't have any incentive to.

Ya know, Ted you make a good point re the ref bias. Here's the way I look at it.

I've been a Habs fan since '59, but my parents couldn't afford to send me or any of my brothers to little league hockey. Now, ( in theory) "if" they could have, then I would have grown up into my teenage years trying the best I could, but, didn't quite make it because I didn't have the skills necessary, but I could skate. OK, so I love hockey, don't have the skills, so maybe I could be a ref. So, I do everything I can to become a ref and eventually do, but, I'm still a Habs fan, so I might be prejudiced towards giving the Habs a break at some point during a game.

And I believe that "some" refs think that way, consciously or not. 

Edited by kinot-2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

As for the Ontario part of things, only pointing out that the Situation Room where they're making these calls is stocked with a bunch of guys from Ontario. No idea whether they're Leafs or Sens fans or otherwise, but

I think that using birthplace to insinuate opinions about a person's ability to do their job fairly is at its' best disingenuous and at its' worst something else entirely. The refs and the disciplinary panel may be biased or incompetent but I don't think birthplace has anything to do with either their incompetence or biases and thinking it does may indicate a form of paranoia.

In 1970 I worked in a province where birth place meant almost everything and mine was not the correct one. Not being born there meant I was perceived to be biased against their aspirations and as a result I was often threatened with bodily harm so perhaps I am a bit sensitive about the subject. 

I respect your right to express your opinions although I certainly don't agree with birthplace profiling.

For the record I was not born in Ontario. I was also not born in Quebec but I have been a Montreal Canadien fan since Maurice ruffled my hair many. many years ago. Lets get back to hockey.

                                                                                                                          - 30 - 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, kinot-2 said:

Ya know, Ted you make a good point re the ref bias. Here's the way I look at it.

I've been a Habs fan since '59, but my parents couldn't afford to send me or any of my brothers to little league hockey. Now, ( in theory) "if" they could have, then I would have grown up into my teenage years trying the best I could, but, didn't quite make it because I didn't have the skills necessary, but I could skate. OK, so I love hockey, don't have the skills, so maybe I could be a ref. So, I do everything I can to become a ref and eventually do, but, I'm still a Habs fan, so I might be prejudiced towards giving the Habs a break at some point during a game.

And I believe that "some" refs think that way, consciously or not. 

Its a fair point but I think once you get to the stage where you're a professional - ref or otherwise - biases are far less likely to enter.  Every single player in the NHL likely had 1 team they loved more than the other 30 but very very few of them end up playing for that team. They get past it. Tavares chose the leafs & maybe Crosby would choose the habs but until they did/do they just do their job.  I would expect the same from most (like 99%) of all refs.  I dont think there's an overwhelming bias, I just think there's a sever incompetence.

Put it another way - i love the habs, I like doing art work for the team, but I havent put in any less effort on my pieces commissioned by other teams.  Mind you, ive never been commissioned by the bruins or the flyers.. dont know if i could do that. (shudder) :4224:
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, maas_art said:

Its a fair point but I think once you get to the stage where you're a professional - ref or otherwise - biases are far less likely to enter.  Every single player in the NHL likely had 1 team they loved more than the other 30 but very very few of them end up playing for that team. They get past it. Tavares chose the leafs & maybe Crosby would choose the habs but until they did/do they just do their job.  I would expect the same from most (like 99%) of all refs.  I dont think there's an overwhelming bias, I just think there's a sever incompetence.

Put it another way - i love the habs, I like doing art work for the team, but I havent put in any less effort on my pieces commissioned by other teams.  Mind you, ive never been commissioned by the bruins or the flyers.. dont know if i could do that. (shudder) :4224:
 

So, by omission, you've done the laffs. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, kinot-2 said:

So, by omission, you've done the laffs. :rolleyes:

Many years ago but honestly I dont have the Laffs as much as Boston or Philly. I honestly dont know if i could take a commission to do a drawing of Marchand, no matter what the bruins paid me :P haha. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, maas_art said:

Many years ago but honestly I dont have the Laffs as much as Boston or Philly. I honestly dont know if i could take a commission to do a drawing of Marchand, no matter what the bruins paid me :P haha. 

Just draw him with a rat nose. They won't notice.:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, RCAF48 said:

I think that using birthplace to insinuate opinions about a person's ability to do their job fairly is at its' best disingenuous and at its' worst something else entirely. The refs and the disciplinary panel may be biased or incompetent but I don't think birthplace has anything to do with either their incompetence or biases and thinking it does may indicate a form of paranoia.

In 1970 I worked in a province where birth place meant almost everything and mine was not the correct one. Not being born there meant I was perceived to be biased against their aspirations and as a result I was often threatened with bodily harm so perhaps I am a bit sensitive about the subject. 

I respect your right to express your opinions although I certainly don't agree with birthplace profiling.

For the record I was not born in Ontario. I was also not born in Quebec but I have been a Montreal Canadien fan since Maurice ruffled my hair many. many years ago. Lets get back to hockey.

                                                                                                                          - 30 - 

My point is really just saying the NHL should be more open to diversity. In a league where they play in 31 different cities and have players from all over the world, I find it odd and sad that the entire group making rulings in important plays like this are all from one province. I've lived in Ontario, I've lived in Quebec, I've lived elsewhere, and I have nothing against any one of these places or the people who come from them. I'm not in the least saying people from Ontario are incompetent, I just don't think the league should have 5 guys from Ontario making these key decisions. I would say the same thing if it were 5 guys from Quebec or 5 guys from Russia or 5 guys from San Jose. It has nothing to do with any one individual or birthplace. It's only a commentary saying that the optics of this look bad, especially when the decisions are inconsistent and it's hard to find logic to defend them. I really just don't see why the league couldn't have more diversity in its office so that it takes out the optics of it being 5 guys from one province.

I'll give another example, but I think it was the recent World Junior Championships in Canada and because of quarantine and travel rules, all the officials were Canadian. There were complaints from fans of other countries saying the refs were biased in favor of Canada. Were they? Who knows. Maybe they were. Maybe they just view what's acceptable and not acceptable through the eyes of a Canadian fan and what we're used to seeing here and not how refs would call a game in the Czech Republic or Finland. Maybe they're the opposite and actually harsher on Team Canada to try and prove they're not favoring the home country. I don't know. But whether it's purposeful or subconscious or just the nature of your worldview because of where you were raised, there is the possibility that your upbringing and allegiances can play into how you view or officiate or rule on things. It might not happen, but the optics aren't helped by this, and the league would be better served to diversify its office, the same way it looked bad to have a team of all-Canadian officials reffing Team Canada games or the same way everyone might think about favoritism when a kid's teacher is its own parent or when the boss of a company hires a family member as an employee. As another example, think of scandals at the Olympics, where the American judge purposely down-scored Canadian syncro swimmer Sylvie Frechette in order to help the American's chances of winning. Think of the ice skating judge who did the same thing to Jamie Sale and David Pelletier because of an agreement to try and help their own country win medals. It would be nice to think everyone's fair and plays by the rules, but we have plenty of examples in sports where this didn't happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Tom Wilson has an "in-person Zoom hearing" for his hit against Brandon Carlo yesterday. Wilson crushed Carlo's head into the glass and sent him to hospital. That said, it was not

- a hit from behind

- a late hit

- a hit where he left his feet

- a hit where the head was the only point of contact

 

In my view, this should absolutely be a lengthy suspension for delivering a severe blow to the head. BUT... how many hits to the head have we seen where the above was the case and the NHL just wrote them off and said it wasn't just a head pick, therefore it's legal? We've seen our own Habs get knocked out with tons of headshots where none of this was called. Anyone remember Chara sending Pacioretty's head flying into the stanchion and the league's viewpoint was that the stanchion caused the injury, not Chara running his head into it? Same deal here. I'm pretty sure Carlo got injured when his head smashed into the glass. So what's the difference? It certainly looks like the NHL is preparing a decent suspension against Wilson, but he's actually not even deemed a repeat offender with his last suspension being over two years ago (his slate is wiped clean according to what's been reported). So why is this hit being looked at but other teams have been able to run Armia and Kotkaniemi and so on? Is it because it was a Bruin that was hit and Bettman wants to help out his buddy Jeremy Jacob? Is it because the league sees Wilson as a whipping boy that they can suspend to show they're occasionally doing something? Sure seems like there's a double-standard here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, kinot-2 said:

Wilson got 7 games. 

Which in itself I agree with. They should have thrown the book at him. I'm just disgusted by the fact the only reason he got this is cause one of the baby Bruins got hurt. Not sure if anyone else has watched the NHL DoPS' video but there are a ton of inconsistencies with how they've ruled on other things. For example

 

- They said that Wilson's hit was primarily to the head and/or received significant impact. True. But in other hits where the head was significantly impacted or the primary point of the contact but like Wilson's hit, where there was some amount of contact to the body too, they've just written it off and said the body also got some contact and therefore the rest doesn't matter. Here they've chosen to ignore the fact he also gets some of Carlo's body and focus on the fact the head gets rocked. Again, this is how it should be. If there's significant head contact, it shouldn't matter whether you get a bit of body or not. I just don't get why they change the narrative as they want to.

- They said Wilson got a long suspension because he has a significant history of 5 past suspensions. The NHL DoPS' own rules state that a player will be considered a repeat offender if they have been suspended within the past 18 months. Wilson's last suspension dates back to October 2018. So while he is clearly a dirtbag, his history shouldn't be quoted a a factor. I remember when Lucic and Marchand were up for suspensions and the NHL said things like "oh just one game because past incidents don't count if they weren't in the past 18 months. Why does this apply to Wilson but never applied when Boston was being suspended?

- They state that they're ruling this under "boarding" and suspending because Wilson pushes or checks a defenseless opponent into the boards in a violent or dangerous manner. Yet you can also see Carlo bracing for the hit, so he knew to some degree he was coming. But you know who would also fall under this heading? How about Pacoretty reaching for the puck and then getting shoved headfirst into the stanchion by Chara? Once again, another example that shows the league will defend the Bruins at all costs but be perfectly willing to quote the same rules against other teams.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Brandon Tanev ejected tonight after a hit on Jarred Tinordi. Tinordi dumped the puck in, Tanev came flying over and hit him in the front/side just as he released the puck. He sent him flying into the boards, which were maybe 5 feet away at the time of the hit. Tinordi's back hit the boards and he stayed down. The Bruins' players came and jumped Tanev after...

Was it a dangerous hit? Sure. But not sure how this fits with the NHL's recent and previous history of saying a hit is fine if it's the boards that cause the injury. Seems once again that there's a different rulebook because the Bruin was the one who got hurt here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

Brandon Tanev ejected tonight after a hit on Jarred Tinordi. Tinordi dumped the puck in, Tanev came flying over and hit him in the front/side just as he released the puck. He sent him flying into the boards, which were maybe 5 feet away at the time of the hit. Tinordi's back hit the boards and he stayed down. The Bruins' players came and jumped Tanev after...

Was it a dangerous hit? Sure. But not sure how this fits with the NHL's recent and previous history of saying a hit is fine if it's the boards that cause the injury. Seems once again that there's a different rulebook because the Bruin was the one who got hurt here.

I'd say it was a clean hit and Tinordi just went down awkwardly. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, habs1952 said:

I'd say it was a clean hit and Tinordi just went down awkwardly. 

That's how I see it too, he fell really awkwardly but the hit itself seems fine. Right in the chest, neither late nor blindsided, no head contact. Dangerous? Possibly, but not more so than other checks that are considered part of the game, it's not like he intentionally drilled Tinordi into the boards and there was still a good chunk of space.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, habs1952 said:

I'd say it was a clean hit and Tinordi just went down awkwardly. 

 

8 hours ago, ChiLla said:

That's how I see it too, he fell really awkwardly but the hit itself seems fine. Right in the chest, neither late nor blindsided, no head contact. Dangerous? Possibly, but not more so than other checks that are considered part of the game, it's not like he intentionally drilled Tinordi into the boards and there was still a good chunk of space.

My take on this: did he hit a player in an area of the rink where there was a possibility of his getting hurt? Sure. But most hits have the ability to potentially hurt a player. If that hit had been 3 feet further away from the boards or in the middle of the ice, it would have been deemed legal. The only reason it was deemed a major penalty was because he sent his opponent into the boards dangerously and the contact with the boards led to an injury.

I don't know if that sounds familiar, but remember Chara crushing Pacioretty into the stanchion? The league made a huge stink about how it wasn't Chara that caused the injury but rather the stanchion that did it. We got a lot of "the NHL is extraordinarily comfortable with ruling not to suspend Chara" and "it wasn't the hit that was the problem, it was where he was on the ice and that can't be blamed on Chara." So how is this any different? We've also seen guys cross-checked from behind and they go flying head-first into the crossbar. We saw PK Subban cross-check Taylor Hall from behind yesterday in front of the NJ net and Hall ended up falling forward head first into a slapshot. Are these penalties? Are they ejections or suspensions? I'm not telling the league what should and shouldn't be a penalty here but they need to be consistent and they need to decide if they're making these decisions based on the potential danger of a hit or on the end result. It just feels like there's a brutal lack of consistency yet again and that it always seems things are done in the Bruins' favor.

On a similar note to this, the AHL just suspended Laval Rocket player Yannick Veilleux for making an obscene gesture to the opponents' bench. Two games. Two games for that. Remember when Brad Marchand did that and got nothing? Remember when Andrew Ference flipped the bird to the Montreal crowd and got nothing? Remember when Mike Richards called PK Subban a very derogatory term and got nothing? I do. Once again, if you want to make that part of the rules that obscene or unsportsmanlike or racist gestures get you suspended, do what you see fit. But why is this a problem that is being flagged in this case but was left unchecked in these other cases when they involved players from Boston or Philly?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/16/2021 at 9:59 PM, habs1952 said:

I'd say it was a clean hit and Tinordi just went down awkwardly. 

I think what happened to Tinordi is the definition of boarding, is it not? It doesn't have to be from behind to warrant a boarding call, as far as I understand. However, I don't know that the Pittsburgh player deserved five and a game. Maybe two minutes for boarding.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I could see boarding if Tanev had extended his arms after the hit to push Tinordi into the boards but there was minimal arm movement/extension. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Completely unbiased officiating in this league, it's refreshing really :lol:

https://www.tsn.ca/report-league-looking-into-hot-mic-in-nashville-predators-game-1.1612579

[...]

The comments indicate one of the officials wanted to call a penalty against the Predators.

"It wasn't much, but I wanted to get a f***** penalty against Nashville early in the..." a background voice said on the broadcast before becoming inaudible. 

This came moments after Preds forward Viktor Arvidsson was called for a tripping penalty on Detroit's Jon Merrill early in the second period.

The two officials working the game were Kelly Sutherland and Tim Peel, who announced the penalty. The league declined to comment further outside of saying the matter is being looked into.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ChiLla said:

Completely unbiased officiating in this league, it's refreshing really :lol:

https://www.tsn.ca/report-league-looking-into-hot-mic-in-nashville-predators-game-1.1612579

[...]

The comments indicate one of the officials wanted to call a penalty against the Predators.

"It wasn't much, but I wanted to get a f***** penalty against Nashville early in the..." a background voice said on the broadcast before becoming inaudible. 

This came moments after Preds forward Viktor Arvidsson was called for a tripping penalty on Detroit's Jon Merrill early in the second period.

The two officials working the game were Kelly Sutherland and Tim Peel, who announced the penalty. The league declined to comment further outside of saying the matter is being looked into.

Yes, so this is supposedly Tim Peel who got caught saying this. Greg Wyshynski of Yahoosports also re-posted a story he wrote in 2015 about Peel, where Peel had been caught admitting to "game management" directives from the NHL... apparently there were other games where he has admitted he made bad calls simply because the league had told refs to crack down on one type of penalty and he felt compelled to find something to call in that category to show that the league was enforcing its crackdown. He also admitted that refs call penalties according to the score of the game and the teams playing each other, so that things look even or so that rivalry games don't get out of control.

None of this necessarily suggests a bias against any one team (i.e. refs could be doing this to any team on any given night) but it does essentially prove that the officials are not really calling penalties by the rulebook but rather by trying to produce certain results. In these cases, it sounds like Peel wanted to generate a make-up call or else keep a score closer so as to prevent a blow-out (when things get out of hand in terms of antics). What does this do? It helps the dirtier teams in the league. If a team like Boston commits 30 infractions in a game and a team like the Habs commits 15, but both teams get called for 5 penalties, it means the Bruins got away with 25 fouls, compared to 10 for the Habs. It means the Habs were cheated out of more powerplays and it means the Bruins were able to counter the Habs' attack more often without suffering any consequences.

In recent years, it is clear the officials are doing their best to make calls against guys who lift their sticks up parallel to the ice, even if the gesture doesn't actually hook the opponent or slow him down in any way. But there is zero crackdown on headshots, hits from behind, knees, etc. The league simply doesn't care about these things because it doesn't want to reduce hitting in the game and worries that penalizing these things will make the game less physical and exciting for occasional fans of the game who like sports like football or wrestling or boxing or so on. Would not be surprising in the least if the league is still giving refs directives to call hooks and interference and maybe even rewarding those who do it more with playoff games and better games and so on.

So to all those who said it was impossible that there would be corruption or refs altering outcomes of games, we have yet again more evidence to suggest the league is meddling in outcomes of games with specific directives to keep games close and to call ticky-tack calls without going after major aggressors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...