SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Posted: Dec 02 2009 10:58 pm

They could very easily alter a few rules and eliminate fights in hockey, but they won't due that because people want to see fights in hockey. The NHL cannot afford to take out a big piece of the product that people want to spend money to see. And like I said, it is an accepted aspect of the game, it isn't going to change.

Oh yeah dodds, I am pretty sure you get a 5 minute penalty for fighting in the NHL.

Joined: Oct 01 2009 Posts: 5316

Yeah...5 whole minutes...in a hockey game. A game that usually has about 4 or 5 goals in a total game. Now if it was a fast paced game like basketball, that could hurt a team.

2011 SNES Champ Joined: Dec 04 2006 Posts: 1929

Doddsino wrote:

Yeah...5 whole minutes...in a hockey game. A game that usually has about 4 or 5 goals in a total game. Now if it was a fast paced game like basketball, that could hurt a team.

The fuck are you talking about? Penalties, even the two-minutes one, can easily hurt a team, because the risk of giving a goal is much higher (4 or 5x) and you can't really do shit in those two minutes.
You should know that most of those 4 or 5 goals you're talking about occur during powerplays.
And if you ever get a penalty while your team already has one, it's almost an automatic goal if there was more then 30 seconds left to the first one.

And the 5-minute penalty for fighting is against the players, not the teams.

Joined: Oct 01 2009 Posts: 5316

I know the penalty is against the player. You might know more about hockey than I do since I hardly ever watch, but everytime I've seen a penalty happen, it usually doesn't affect the game that much, since it usually involves players on both sides. Now if a penalty shot is involved...hell yes it affects the games.

Posted: Dec 07 2009 08:53 pm

Phil Simms. He doesn't seem to show much bias which is nice, but overall he is just.....an idiot. He's horrible at announcing and his opinions and analysis are ridiculous at times.

Joined: Nov 11 2009 Location: Cajun Country Posts: 1511

I hate sports analysts in general. I think it's a waste of time to "predict" who's going to win in sports.

Posted: Jan 15 2010 12:37 am

How fox sports Arizona is showing the Stanford v Washington game instead of Arizona v Oregon

Posted: Feb 21 2010 08:00 pm

the u of AZ basketball team this year upsets me to no end

Posted: Feb 22 2010 04:57 pm

That this forum is dominated by Wrasslin' hacks. God.

Posted: Mar 12 2010 10:24 am

^ This is sadly true.

Also, what pisses me off, is the Red Sox not signing Bay/adding a new power presence. I'm not a fan of hoping that Papi can get his shit together, the Yankees are too strong.

Joined: Aug 24 2005 Location: Mount Holly, NJ Posts: 1062

The trapezoid behind the goalie's net so he can only stick handle there. Brodeur got too good at puck handling, so they had to change the rules. Way to handicap my Devils Sad

2011 SNES Champ Joined: Dec 04 2006 Posts: 1929

Kubo wrote:

The trapezoid behind the goalie's net so he can only stick handle there. Brodeur got too good at puck handling, so they had to change the rules. Way to handicap my Devils Sad

The NHL often don't seem to make any fucking sense, changing rules at random just for the hell of it.
Apparently, they do it so it's more spectacular to attract Americans to the games or something. I really doubt it works.

Also, how the love making stupidly complex rules instead of simple ones. What's that bullshit tiebreaker for regular time victories over victories in OT?
Either give 3 points for a regular victory or 0 for a OTL and your fucking problem will be solved already. I hate that damn point coming out of nowhere.

Joined: Aug 24 2005 Location: Mount Holly, NJ Posts: 1062

I understand the point system... you want to reward a team for doing well enough to take the game to OT.

Win in regulation = 2 points
Win in OT/SO = 2 points
Lose in OT/SO = 1 point
Lose in regulation = 0 points

You still get two points if you win, regardless of how you win... if your team does well enough to take the game to OT though, you're guaranteed 1 point. I'm ok with that one. But you're right, it is convoluted.

Joined: Nov 11 2009 Location: Cajun Country Posts: 1511

Shut up, Dorn wrote:

That this forum is dominated by Wrasslin' hacks. God.

I rarely visit the Sports forum because of this very reason. I've never been interested in wrestling.

Posted: Mar 13 2010 04:41 pm

I have a hard time rewarding a team for losing a game regardless if it's overtime or regulation. Seems pretty stupid to me, though ties are also pretty lame.

In the event of a tie at regulation, the top fighter on each team should go out to center ice, whoever is standing at the end, wins the game. How often would people be rooting for ties? It would be awesome.

Posted: Mar 13 2010 05:19 pm

The NFL Combine. I get why its held, but I don't get the media blitz surrounding it, or a lot of the analysis. I mean, guy A can run the 400m in .12 seconds faster than guy B, and commentators go NUTS over it. Does .12 seconds REALLY matter? Is that any indication of what kind of an *actual football player* he will be? No. Stfu and talk about the prospects' OVERALL ability, and how they played in actual GAMES. Don't act like a guy has screwed up his chances for being a high pick because he ran a race a few hundredths of a second slower than some other guy. Rolling Eyes

Posted: Mar 13 2010 06:49 pm

Though I agree with the silly over hype, I think that the minor differences can make a difference in a game like football. Yes, I'll take the player with more football smarts and .12 slower 40 dash or an inch shorter, etc. but, I also think that if the type of player/smarts are the same, then that .12 is the difference between scraping by for an extra two yards or getting stuffed for a loss of one.
In a game of inches, yeah, it matters.

Posted: Mar 13 2010 06:52 pm

^ Well, I grant that, and all other things being equal, of course you're going to take the faster guy, even if its a matter of hundredths of a second.

What annoys me about the Combine is that "all things being equal" is thrown out the window, and they act like whatever even is currently going on will make or break every single player's career before its even started. They make it too much of a straight *competition* (like the Olympics or something) and not enough discussion about *overall worth as a player.*

Posted: Mar 15 2010 01:09 am

that fucking pacquio fight

Posted: Mar 16 2010 03:31 am

username wrote:

that fucking pacquio fight

Fight Mayweather already. Kee-ryst...

Posted: Mar 21 2010 09:48 am

You know what pisses me off right now?
The fact hat Brazil and some other countries take the World Cup WAY too seriously. But especially Brazil.
IN commercials, sports news and the like, they imply they'll be the imminent champions. They say how much we are 'true warriors' and how 'everyone envies their football and take it as their influence'. That's just damn sickening. It's just soccer! It won't save your population!

Posted: Mar 21 2010 01:24 pm

nothing wrong w/football chileno.

at any rate, im pretty happy with Kansas losing. im sure that messed up 90% of brackets out there

Posted: Mar 21 2010 06:49 pm

It messed up my bracket. Maybe I should've gone with Kentucky.

Posted: Mar 22 2010 08:41 pm

I went with Ohio State but it still fucks up my bracket some. What really fucks my bracket is Villanova and Pitt Losing. Now I gotta hope the rest of my choices win to stand a chance.

2011 SNES Champ Joined: Dec 04 2006 Posts: 1929

The Habs losing a game because they can't spend two minutes without taking a penalty. Fucking idiots.

How often do you see a team shitty enough to allow TWO goals after the opposite team pulled the goalie!?