The Official NHL Playoffs Thread

[niss]

Wow. Doc Emrick -- Devils announcer -- biased? Towards the Rangers? Just wow.

[cognito20]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow. Doc Emrick -- Devils announcer -- biased? Towards the Rangers? Just wow.

[/ QUOTE ]

You haven't been watching hockey for very long, have you? Emrick -also- was a Rangers announcer, doing lots of substitute work for Marv Albert up until Albert stopped doing hockey in 1995. So it's not like he's a mortal enemy of the Rangers organization...he actually -worked- for them, for a long time. So you can't just write off any "bias" accusations because he happens to work for the Devils now. You can count the number of times he's said something positive about the Sabres in this series on one hand, and have a finger left over to flip off people who confuse "Devils fan" with "current Devils announcer".

--Scott

[niss]

I assure you I may have attended more hockey games -- pro and college -- than you have watched in your lifetime. Accusations of bias in national announcers are generally retarded, and are even moreso in the case of Mike Emrick, particularly today.

[Triumph36]

[ QUOTE ]
I assure you I may have attended more hockey games -- pro and college -- than you have watched in your lifetime. Accusations of bias in national announcers are generally retarded, and are even moreso in the case of Mike Emrick, particularly today.

[/ QUOTE ]

particularly when they call rick jeanneret a pro - rofl

emrick and olcyzk are displaying some pro-ranger mentality but it's an underdog matchup in the team's home building - have to give them some latitude to do so.

[cognito20]

[ QUOTE ]
I assure you I may have attended more hockey games -- pro and college -- than you have watched in your lifetime.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unprovable assertion, not to mention I doubt it. Lifelong Sabres, Elmira College and Cornell fan, and have had season tickets for EC since 1978, Cornell since 1990 and Sabres season tickets every season from 1994 until I moved out of the Buffalo area in 2004. I'm not even going to count the thousands upon thousands of games I've watched on TV or listened to on the radio. IF you actually work in professional or college hockey, you MIGHT have attended and/or seen more games than me. MIGHT. It's not really a relevant point, anyway. If you ARE such an uber-hockey guru, it's more than a little intellectually dishonest of you to conveniently ignore the little-known fact that Emrick is also a long-time RANGERS announcer in your snide little remark above, wouldn't you say? Or didn't you figure that the average poster in this thread knew that little factoid? Nice try, but you're going to have to do better than that against me.

[ QUOTE ]
Accusations of bias in national announcers are generally retarded, and are even moreso in the case of Mike Emrick, particularly today.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. All that has to happen for me to stop accusing Emrick of bias is...well...for him to stop being biased.

--Scott

[PokerFink]

Two comments about the Rangers-Sabres game

1) That was not a goal imo. His foot moved foward and slid the puck into the net.

2) MSG sounds very, very loud.

[MacGuyV]

[ QUOTE ]
How they reverse that goal is ridiculous.

How they gave Buffalo the 4th goal in the first game is ridiculous.

I don't want to hear any whining from Buffalo fans about calls. The officiating in this series has been so pro-Buffalo it's obscene.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whine after losing Game 1 by 3 [censored] goals, benefit from the officials in Game 2, and then pro-actively complain about Buffalo fans "whining" when nobody has. Just wow.

[niss]

[ QUOTE ]
Two comments about the Rangers-Sabres game

1) That was not a goal imo. His foot moved foward and slid the puck into the net.

2) MSG sounds very, very loud.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no way that replay is enough to reverse the call on the ice. None. There has to be a "distinct kicking motion to propel the puck into the net". It might have been a kick, it more likely was Rachunek trying to stop as he crashed to the net. There is no way to tell from the replay.

7-2 Buffalo power play advantage. 7 to [censored] 2. It can be expected that the Rangers will take more penalties than Buffalo. Buffalo is significantly faster. But 7 to 2? On these [censored] ticky-tack calls? The Shanahan call was ridiculous ... more could have been dive than a penalty on Shanahan. Do the officials know that it's the playoffs? It's a joke.

[niss]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How they reverse that goal is ridiculous.

How they gave Buffalo the 4th goal in the first game is ridiculous.

I don't want to hear any whining from Buffalo fans about calls. The officiating in this series has been so pro-Buffalo it's obscene.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whine after losing Game 1 by 3 [censored] goals, benefit from the officials in Game 2, and then pro-actively complain about Buffalo fans "whining" when nobody has. Just wow.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF are you talking about? Nobody said Buffalo didn't deserve to win game 1 or that they aren't the better team overall.

The benefit of the officiating in game 2? Are you high? Other than the x-check on Briere at the end tell me one call against Buffalo that was bad. ONE. Menawhile the Sabres have been handed two goals (one added to Buffalo and one taken away from the Rangers) on replay reversals that are just awful calls. TWO GOALS. Awful.

And nobody said any Sabers fan has been whining. What I said was not to whine about calls in the future after the gifts Buffalo has been handed in these 3 games. Learn to read.

[PokerFink]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no way that replay is enough to reverse the call on the ice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I disagree with you, the replay officials disagree with you, and the NHL's head of officiating disagrees with you. Other than that, you're right.