Originally posted by Palynka The question is not if uzless knows more about ice hockey than me. I couldn't care less about ice hockey. The question is if I, having never played the game, would be able to reach the same level of understanding than him.
Obviously, the answer is YES, because my evidently superior intelligence (relative to uzless'😉 would eventually prevail over his fabled "experience".
Originally posted by Melanerpes Am I the only one here interested in learning something here from uzless?
The underlying point of uzless's argument is that a person with direct experience is going to be aware of subtleties that the non-player is going to miss. Being that I have never played anything close to real ice hockey (and never will), the next best thing is to gather whatever ...[text shortened]... m those who have played. And I am very interested in finding out about what I might be missing.
I do not disagree with you that you or I can learn from uzless (presuming that he knows more about hockey than you or me) as we could probably learn from any educated comentator. I just felt that is one of the reasons why you do NOT need to be an expert to watch a sport.
Originally posted by sh76 I don't understand the question. The goal was scored because the offensive player shot the puck into the net. What kind of analysis are you looking for?
Originally posted by Melanerpes 1. A major thing was the bad pass by the defenseman that originally set up the play. The pass overshot the intended recipient, bounced off the wall, and Ovechkin was able to intercept it. Ovechkin then made a nifty spin move to get around the guy with him, and now had an almost clear path to the net.
2. A defender was able to catch up and checked Ovech ...[text shortened]... was enough time to think of doing that in the split second that it took for the play to occur
better but still missing many key, and the main, elements
Originally posted by quackquack This is very different than what you were arguing in the other forum. To be consistent with your previously absurd poistion, you need to show that no one who wasn't an ex-player can have an comprehension of what is going on that their explanation has enough meaning that they could enjoy watching the sport. No one would argue with you that most ex-player ...[text shortened]... what I found ridiculous is your claim that they an average person could not understand a sport.
explain the play then to back up your opinion. Let's talk facts.
Originally posted by Melanerpes Am I the only one here interested in learning something here from uzless?
The underlying point of uzless's argument is that a person with direct experience is going to be aware of subtleties that the non-player is going to miss. Being that I have never played anything close to real ice hockey (and never will), the next best thing is to gather whatever ...[text shortened]... m those who have played. And I am very interested in finding out about what I might be missing.
Originally posted by Crowley The underlying point of uzless' ranting is utterly flawed.
He chose an apt username.
He gets all pretentious about these mythic 'subtleties of the game' and then chooses a clip with a blunder and some individual magic.
explain the play then you idiot. What's a matter. Scared that your explanation will be so woefully inadequate that your weak-ass position will be exposed for the clap-trap that it is?
Put your money where your gaping mouth is. Explain why the goal was scored!
Originally posted by Palynka The question is not if uzless knows more about ice hockey than me. I couldn't care less about ice hockey. The question is if I, having never played the game, would be able to reach the same level of understanding than him.
Obviously, the answer is YES, because my evidently superior intelligence (relative to uzless'😉 would eventually prevail over his fabled "experience".
Case closed.
again, another chicken.
Tell us WHY the goal was scored. Melanpress took a shot at it...why won't you all?? Bunch of scaredy cats too scared to come out from behind your cloaks of presumed intelligence. We all know why you won't just explain the play...it's because you can't..plain and simple!
I gave you a shot and you all wouldn't even take the bat off your shoulder. Chickens. Disgusting. Next time, keep your mouths shut if you aren't prepared to back up your opinions with facts. Bunch of panty-waist psuedo-intellects too afraid to answer a simple simple question.
Why did the goal go in? Not even Darv will take a shot at this one??? For shame.
Originally posted by uzless again, another chicken.
Tell us WHY the goal was scored. Melanpress took a shot at it...why won't you all?? Bunch of scaredy cats too scared to come out from behind your cloaks of presumed intelligence. We all know why you won't just explain the play...it's because you can't..plain and simple!
I gave you a shot and you all wouldn't even take the bat ...[text shortened]...
Why did the goal go in? Not even Darv will take a shot at this one??? For shame.
😕
If you knew how to read you'd realize that my post means THAT I HAVE NO IDEA why that goal was scored. I have never watched a full 10 minutes of ice hockey, nor can I be arsed to.
If you think this somehow proves your point, then you're even a bigger muppet than I thought. However, I'll give you some credit and assume you just wanted me to back myself into the corner of your choice.
Now give me some credit and realize I'm not falling for something that obvious.
Originally posted by Palynka If you knew how to read you'd realize that my posts means THAT I HAVE NO IDEA why that goal was scored. I have never watched a full 10 minutes of ice hockey, nor can I be arsed to.
If you think this somehow proves your point, then you're even a bigger muppet than I thought. However, I'll give you some credit and assume you just wanted me to back myself i ...[text shortened]... r choice.
Now give me some credit and realize I'm not falling for something that obvious.
Paly said:
The question is not if uzless knows more about ice hockey than me. I couldn't care less about ice hockey. The question is if I, having never played the game, would be able to reach the same level of understanding than him.
Obviously, the answer is YES, because my evidently superior intelligence (relative to uzless'😉 would eventually prevail over his fabled "experience".
Case closed.
So the case wasn't quite that closed, and now you are changing your opinion entirely.
Now you are saying you were wrong, you obviously can't have it both ways. He picked out a simple play for those of you who have never played the game, but thought you could understand it as well as someone who had.
okay - I noticed something else - a key player "disappears".
the defenseman that made the initial bad pass -- after he made that pass, it appears that it was the end of his shift and he was heading off the ice (hard to say, since the game score is blocking the view, maybe he was just rushing forward). But if had remained where he was after making the pass, he would have probably been able to react and stop the play. And perhaps it was that defenseman's absence that caused the goalie to move to his left?
The defenseman got caught "assuming" that his "routine" pass would be successful.
EDIT: looking at the actual shot it itself - it appeared that the goalie's reaction was to kick his legs out to the corners of the net - but in order to "kick", he first pulled his foot AWAY from the right corner (as he contracted his leg), briefly exposing the corner, and when he then made the kick, it was a split second too late. I think it was this "kick" operation that was behind the goalie's apparent move to his left.
18 Nov '09 09:34
You be the Commentator...
Back to Top