If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Cool: Putting a 3 inch hockey puck through a 3 1/2 in hole from center ice for $50,000 after taking your twin brother's spot in the contest. Farkin cool: You're 11. Cool with style: Doing it in slippers   (cnn.com) divider line 51
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

4885 clicks; posted to Sports » on 15 Aug 2011 at 1:45 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



51 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-08-14 11:44:08 PM
I wonder how long until the event organizers refuse to pay because the person taking the shot wasn't the one that paid.

no, I'm serious.

/also, nice shot jabroni
 
2011-08-14 11:49:42 PM
Can you put a 3-inch hockey puck through a 3-1/2-inch hole?

Not right now...
 
2011-08-14 11:58:40 PM
Cripes, that camera guy was horrible. Did he not realize that the kid would actually shoot the puck?

/ good job, kid
// Bruins draft 2018
 
2011-08-15 12:00:41 AM

calbert: I wonder how long until the event organizers refuse to pay because the person taking the shot wasn't the one that paid was duly chosen to participate.

no, I'm serious.

/also, nice shot jabroni


^THIS. I'll be very surprised if they pay out. His name wasn't drawn, he made the shot in violation of the rules, there are all kinds of ways their lawyers could think of to get them out of it. And I'm willing to bet they will.
 
2011-08-15 12:19:39 AM

Benevolent Misanthrope: calbert: I wonder how long until the event organizers refuse to pay because the person taking the shot wasn't the one that paid was duly chosen to participate.

no, I'm serious.

/also, nice shot jabroni

^THIS. I'll be very surprised if they pay out. His name wasn't drawn, he made the shot in violation of the rules, there are all kinds of ways their lawyers could think of to get them out of it. And I'm willing to bet they will.


But it's $50,000 and it's a kid. That's chump change any star player could drop on a birthday party pre-game session at the strip club and it's good publicity to pay out to kids, even if you have smooth over some legal gaps.

If you fark with kids you'll lose $50,000 worth of business from bad publicity but if you're nice to kids "We couldn't NOT pay him, he's 11. We hope to sign him someday." you'll make back $100,000 or more in good publicity.
 
2011-08-15 12:37:07 AM

doglover: Benevolent Misanthrope: calbert: I wonder how long until the event organizers refuse to pay because the person taking the shot wasn't the one that paid was duly chosen to participate.

no, I'm serious.

/also, nice shot jabroni

^THIS. I'll be very surprised if they pay out. His name wasn't drawn, he made the shot in violation of the rules, there are all kinds of ways their lawyers could think of to get them out of it. And I'm willing to bet they will.

But it's $50,000 and it's a kid. That's chump change any star player could drop on a birthday party pre-game session at the strip club and it's good publicity to pay out to kids, even if you have smooth over some legal gaps.

If you fark with kids you'll lose $50,000 worth of business from bad publicity but if you're nice to kids "We couldn't NOT pay him, he's 11. We hope to sign him someday." you'll make back $100,000 or more in good publicity.


OK - not up to snark tonight, so I'll be nicer than usual:

This was not a hockey team intermission thing. As I understand, It was a fund-raiser where people who wanted a shot had to buy a ticket. So, no "star players", no parties, no "press" to worry about really. People have the hindsight of a farking gnat and will forget by the time next year's fundraiser rolls around. And a $5,000 payoff to the reporter "covering" the "OMG THEY DIDN'T PAY HIM" story is much better than $50,000 to the kid. But really - the charity status is enough to keep the non-pay out of the headlines if they so choose.
 
2011-08-15 12:41:15 AM

doglover: Benevolent Misanthrope: calbert: I wonder how long until the event organizers refuse to pay because the person taking the shot wasn't the one that paid was duly chosen to participate.

no, I'm serious.

/also, nice shot jabroni

^THIS. I'll be very surprised if they pay out. His name wasn't drawn, he made the shot in violation of the rules, there are all kinds of ways their lawyers could think of to get them out of it. And I'm willing to bet they will.

But it's $50,000 and it's a kid. That's chump change any star player could drop on a birthday party pre-game session at the strip club and it's good publicity to pay out to kids, even if you have smooth over some legal gaps.

If you fark with kids you'll lose $50,000 worth of business from bad publicity but if you're nice to kids "We couldn't NOT pay him, he's 11. We hope to sign him someday." you'll make back $100,000 or more in good publicity.


While I don't doubt any of the aforementioned possibilities or a brazillion others...

Let's not forget that there's always an even bigger jackhole behind every jackhole lawyer, paying for said representation. If you don't like the symptoms, change the cause.

/this is your adversarial system, america
//quitcherbiatchen
 
2011-08-15 01:35:26 AM

Benevolent Misanthrope: This was not a hockey team intermission thing.


Well...

Why not?
 
2011-08-15 01:52:51 AM
Ok, I'll be "that guy".

Hey subby, it wasn't a slapshot. It was a wobbly-assed wrist shot.

/still great shot for the kid
//no, I probably couldn't do it
///Ok, maybe if you put the hole right where the goalie's logo would be
 
2011-08-15 01:53:09 AM

fusillade762: Can you put a 3-inch hockey puck through a 3-1/2-inch hole?

Not right now...


A girl's gotta have her standards
 
2011-08-15 02:10:09 AM
Cripes, how about $50,000 for new lights in the arena.
 
2011-08-15 02:20:17 AM
"Putting a 3 inch hockey puck through a 3 1/2 in hole"

Couldn't handle those two pesky letters a second time?
 
2011-08-15 02:50:15 AM

notsosilentbob: Ok, I'll be "that guy".

Hey subby, it wasn't a slapshot. It was a wobbly-assed wrist shot.

/still great shot for the kid
//no, I probably couldn't do it
///Ok, maybe if you put the hole right where the goalie's logo would be


unless the title of this greenlight changed, it says no where in the headline about a slapshot.
 
2011-08-15 02:54:29 AM

discgolfguru: Cripes, that camera guy was horrible. Did he not realize that the kid would actually shoot the puck?

/ good job, kid
// Bruins draft 2018


I was more irritated that they showed the non-footage 4 times.
 
2011-08-15 02:56:57 AM
My guess would be that the people doing the fundraiser paid a small amount of money to an insurance company instead of risking the $50,000. These companies have used technicalities before to dodge having to pay out, and whatever organization is doing the fundraising probably can't afford to actually pay out $50,000 on their own.
 
2011-08-15 03:04:12 AM

kevinatilusa: My guess would be that the people doing the fundraiser paid a small amount of money to an insurance company instead of risking the $50,000. These companies have used technicalities before to dodge having to pay out, and whatever organization is doing the fundraising probably can't afford to actually pay out $50,000 on their own.


yup, this will all come down to some insurance company, and how the legal wording was on the $10 ticket, this is a given
 
2011-08-15 03:12:47 AM
You know who else made a really long shot hockey goal?

www.wearysloth.com
 
2011-08-15 03:16:47 AM
UAA hockey does a "shoot 5 pucks from the blue line" competition between periods at most of their home games. Anyone who goes 5 for 5 wins a prize and gets invited back at the last home game to play for a really big prize (year's supply of Alaska Airlines tickets I think it was)

Small problem with this: one of the participants was Brush Christiansen, the founding father head coach of the program who basically singlehandedly brought them from a club team to Division 1. He went 5 for 5 without even blinking, then won the grand prize in the end. Kinda defeated the purpose.

/amazingly, someone took him to sudden death in the final
 
2011-08-15 03:29:56 AM

martissimo: kevinatilusa: My guess would be that the people doing the fundraiser paid a small amount of money to an insurance company instead of risking the $50,000. These companies have used technicalities before to dodge having to pay out, and whatever organization is doing the fundraising probably can't afford to actually pay out $50,000 on their own.

yup, this will all come down to some insurance company, and how the legal wording was on the $10 ticket, this is a given


Just because you buy the ticket doesn't mean you have to be the one to use it. I don't see them wriggling out of this with a technicality. I'm sure plenty of parents bought tix for their kids...so a brother bought one for his brother. Unless he reported it stolen, I don't see a way out of this.
 
2011-08-15 03:58:02 AM

srhp29: Just because you buy the ticket doesn't mean you have to be the one to use it. I don't see them wriggling out of this with a technicality. I'm sure plenty of parents bought tix for their kids...so a brother bought one for his brother. Unless he reported it stolen, I don't see a way out of this.


Ehh, you never know, if the word "purchaser" is anywhere on that thing it gets a whole lot different, what if the wording was "this entitles the purchaser to one shot from the ....".

It won't matter, even if that kid gets screwed on this the publicity will get him a scholarship or something down the road from good hearted people

/on 3'rd thought, who cares
//more curious about that totally wrong looking use of ellipsis and quotation marks
 
2011-08-15 04:33:28 AM

calbert: I wonder how long until the event organizers refuse to pay because the person taking the shot wasn't the one that paid.

no, I'm serious.

/also, nice shot jabroni


This was my first thought, as well.
 
2011-08-15 05:34:41 AM
I put 3 inches in your mom last night, subby.
 
2011-08-15 06:05:29 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: I put 3 inches in your mom last night, subby.


3 1/2 times, too, AMIRITE?
 
2011-08-15 07:48:15 AM
f man u, runaway hockey player... coyi!
 
2011-08-15 07:59:02 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: I put 3 inches in your mom last night, subby.


Nice of you to bone that little old lady 3 times!
 
2011-08-15 08:13:26 AM
Can vouch for the difficulty of this.

www.daemonstv.com
 
2011-08-15 09:11:47 AM
So 11 year-olds can gamble in MN?
 
2011-08-15 09:40:29 AM
Maybe he can take the $50,000 and buy a pair of shoes so he doesn't have to walk around in public in slippers.
 
2011-08-15 09:40:49 AM

TurkFebruary: Can vouch for the difficulty of this.

[www.daemonstv.com image 550x332]


+1. I'm just glad they finally had a hockey episode even though it paled to the Phillies and Eagles episodes.
 
2011-08-15 09:41:27 AM

Benevolent Misanthrope: calbert: I wonder how long until the event organizers refuse to pay because the person taking the shot wasn't the one that paid was duly chosen to participate.

no, I'm serious.

/also, nice shot jabroni

^THIS. I'll be very surprised if they pay out. His name wasn't drawn, he made the shot in violation of the rules, there are all kinds of ways their lawyers could think of to get them out of it. And I'm willing to bet they will.


s3.amazonaws.com
 
2011-08-15 10:09:20 AM

TurkFebruary: Can vouch for the difficulty of this.

[www.daemonstv.com image 550x332]



First thing that went through my head after I read the headline.
 
2011-08-15 10:23:48 AM
If the organizers let the kid shoot the puck, knowing he was replacing his twin brother, then they need to pay up.

If the kid lied and impersonated his brother...then they could probably get out of paying.
 
2011-08-15 10:32:36 AM

Benevolent Misanthrope: calbert: I wonder how long until the event organizers refuse to pay because the person taking the shot wasn't the one that paid was duly chosen to participate.

no, I'm serious.

/also, nice shot jabroni

^THIS. I'll be very surprised if they pay out. His name wasn't drawn, he made the shot in violation of the rules, there are all kinds of ways their lawyers could think of to get them out of it. And I'm willing to bet they will.


I agree that there will be a ton of bad publicity if they don't pay the kid. However, to prevent future instances like this they should say they are not paying the kid 50K, but will make a one-time donation of 50K to his college fund.

/or something like that
 
2011-08-15 11:08:46 AM
Showed those jabronis.
 
2011-08-15 11:16:31 AM
I remember the Bulls had a promo like this where some guy made a 3/4 court shot, and the underwriting insurance company said they wouldn't pay because the guy played Basketball in middle school. The Bulls said fark that, and paid him themselves.
 
2011-08-15 11:17:01 AM

doglover: If you fark with kids you'll lose $50,000 worth of business from bad publicity but if you're nice to kids "We couldn't NOT pay him, he's 11. We hope to sign him someday." you'll make back $100,000 or more in good publicity.


Real dollars don't work like that.

"oh man it's game 7 of Bruins vs Flyers, I was going to buy front row seats BUT remember that one time they didn't pay that kid his $50k? Oh yeah, I'm totally not going anymore and neither will anyone else"

To put it on a larger scale- people still go to WalMart and it's well know they have the publicity of the devil and wreak havoc on the world.

/hates the imaginary 'publicity dollars'
 
2011-08-15 11:35:20 AM
Wobbly headed news presenter lady needs to lay off the amphetamines.
 
2011-08-15 12:04:08 PM
I hope they pay up, or give him something in kind.

This reminds me, squirt signups are Friday wooooooo!
First year as a travel hockey parent, should be fun/difficult.

/hockey
 
2011-08-15 02:53:14 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: calbert: I wonder how long until the event organizers refuse to pay because the person taking the shot wasn't the one that paid was duly chosen to participate.

no, I'm serious.

/also, nice shot jabroni

^THIS. I'll be very surprised if they pay out. His name wasn't drawn, he made the shot in violation of the rules, there are all kinds of ways their lawyers could think of to get them out of it. And I'm willing to bet they will.


But do you honestly think the kid paid for the ticket? His dad probably paid for the tickets -- one for each son -- so technically if they say the kid didn't pay for it, it wouldn't matter because neither kid paid for the ticket.

That being said, I have to give the dad credit. He was the one who told the people in charge that it was actually his other son that made the shot. If anything, the dad taught his kids how to be truthful despite the possibility of losing $50K.
 
2011-08-15 03:00:18 PM

calbert: I wonder how long until the event organizers refuse to pay because the person taking the shot wasn't the one that paid.

no, I'm serious.

/also, nice shot jabroni


This long:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/15/nate-smith-and-nick-smith_n_927187.htm l

Dumbass father is to blame with that "Honesty is the best policy" crap in an effort to teach his kids a life lesson by telling the game officials about the mixup.

They sure got a lesson all right. 1. "Dad is a farking moron", and 2. "People will always try to screw you any way they can and at every chance they get, over the most ridiculous of technicalities".

This is why you very very rarely see a slot machine jackpot winner actually get their money. Even if they "win", the casino will pull every dirty trick in the book to screw them out of the promised jackpot.

Want to get ahead in life?

Lie.

Cheat.

Steal!
 
2011-08-15 03:29:14 PM

calbert: I wonder how long until the event organizers refuse to pay because the person taking the shot wasn't the one that paid.

no, I'm serious.

/also, nice shot jabroni


THIS

/done in one as they say
 
2011-08-15 03:38:24 PM

Worst.Fark handle. ever.: This is why you very very rarely see a slot machine jackpot winner actually get their money. Even if they "win", the casino will pull every dirty trick in the book to screw them out of the promised jackpot.


What casino does this? Those advertisements with pictures of geezers standing in front of a slot machine with a giant check are worth way more to them than the actual jackpot.
 
2011-08-15 03:55:09 PM

ElwoodCuse: Worst.Fark handle. ever.: This is why you very very rarely see a slot machine jackpot winner actually get their money. Even if they "win", the casino will pull every dirty trick in the book to screw them out of the promised jackpot.

What casino does this? Those advertisements with pictures of geezers standing in front of a slot machine with a giant check are worth way more to them than the actual jackpot.


Oh, there's so many examples out there. Geezer hits jackpot. Casino claims "machine malfunction" which they use to void the jackpot and only offers a free buffet or a tenth of the actual jackpot amount, at best.

And BTW, and I hope you're sitting down while reading this because the shock may be too much for you to bear, but those geezers you spoke of in the advertisements? Models.
 
2011-08-15 04:48:12 PM

doglover: Benevolent Misanthrope: calbert: I wonder how long until the event organizers refuse to pay because the person taking the shot wasn't the one that paid was duly chosen to participate.

no, I'm serious.

/also, nice shot jabroni

^THIS. I'll be very surprised if they pay out. His name wasn't drawn, he made the shot in violation of the rules, there are all kinds of ways their lawyers could think of to get them out of it. And I'm willing to bet they will.

But it's $50,000 and it's a kid. That's chump change any star player could drop on a birthday party pre-game session at the strip club and it's good publicity to pay out to kids, even if you have smooth over some legal gaps.

If you fark with kids you'll lose $50,000 worth of business from bad publicity but if you're nice to kids "We couldn't NOT pay him, he's 11. We hope to sign him someday." you'll make back $100,000 or more in good publicity.


THIS
 
2011-08-15 05:34:59 PM

killershark: Benevolent Misanthrope: calbert: I wonder how long until the event organizers refuse to pay because the person taking the shot wasn't the one that paid was duly chosen to participate.

no, I'm serious.

/also, nice shot jabroni

^THIS. I'll be very surprised if they pay out. His name wasn't drawn, he made the shot in violation of the rules, there are all kinds of ways their lawyers could think of to get them out of it. And I'm willing to bet they will.

But do you honestly think the kid paid for the ticket? His dad probably paid for the tickets -- one for each son -- so technically if they say the kid didn't pay for it, it wouldn't matter because neither kid paid for the ticket.

That being said, I have to give the dad credit. He was the one who told the people in charge that it was actually his other son that made the shot. If anything, the dad taught his kids how to be truthful despite the possibility of losing $50K.


I think that there is a lot of confusion in this thread about what i meant when I said, "the person taking the shot wasn't the one that paid".

I don't mean paid for the ticket to see the hockey game/enter the arena.

According to the news report linked to, the kid's brother had to pay for the chance of being picked to make this shot.

The person who actually took the shot, didn't pay into that promotion.

Buying a ticket for the promotional contest is a completely extra 'fee' than buying the ticket to see the game.

look at it this way, if you and your spouse go to a hockey game, and there is a promotion (that you have to buy separate tickets for) to shoot a puck at half-time.

You do not purchase the 'raffle/event/promotion' ticket.
Your spouse does.

Your spouse's number happens to be picked, but they are outside the arena smoking or making a phone call, you have your spouses ticket in your pocket.

You step up and take and make the shot.

Now if there was any kind of registration/information gathered at the time of the promotional/raffle purchase, you should not get paid.

If it was just tearing off a raffle stub, and no one really knows who technically purchased it, you should get paid.
 
2011-08-15 05:55:52 PM

Worst.Fark handle. ever.: Dumbass father is to blame with that "Honesty is the best policy" crap in an effort to teach his kids a life lesson by telling the game officials about the mixup.

They sure got a lesson all right. 1. "Dad is a farking moron", and 2. "People will always try to screw you any way they can and at every chance they get, over the most ridiculous of technicalities".

This is why you very very rarely see a slot machine jackpot winner actually get their money. Even if they "win", the casino will pull every dirty trick in the book to screw them out of the promised jackpot.




I think you're over-stating this issue by quite a lot. "Very, very rarely" pay? Really? Citation needed. Do people sometimes get stiffed? Sure. Is it common? Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, I'm going to go with "no."

Did I get trolled? Quite possibly.

/I recall seeing a documentary that said that on the largest progressive jackpots, that's often the manufacturer, and not the casino, that pays those out. I was surprised and found it interesting. FWIW, Wikipedia mentions this.
 
2011-08-15 09:25:28 PM
Faribault, MN. Sidney Crosby used to slap the puck around there.
 
2011-08-15 10:54:37 PM
I'm guessing that they won't pay out, but I'm curious to know how it ends.

I think the kids were stupid to switch in the first place - but hey, 11 years old. Kids do stupid stuff, and it's not like their stupid stuff was "Lets steal a gun and knock off a liquor store".

killershark: But do you honestly think the kid paid for the ticket? His dad probably paid for the tickets -- one for each son -- so technically if they say the kid didn't pay for it, it wouldn't matter because neither kid paid for the ticket.


It sounds to me like when they bought the ticket, they had to sign a name up. Then they drew a name, that person comes down to shoot. It's not about who paid for the raffle ticket, it's about who had their name on that ticket. That's the name they called. And that's not the kid that took the shot.

Personally, I think the dad did the right thing. Funny thing about me. I tend to be honest.
 
2011-08-16 03:15:49 AM

JuggleGeek: I think the kids were stupid to switch in the first place - but hey, 11 years old. Kids do stupid stuff, and it's not like their stupid stuff was "Lets steal a gun and knock off a liquor store".


It was my understanding from reading this last night that the brother that the ticket belonged to was outside at the time and the other one took the shot in his place. I also think that dad reported the wrong son took the shot after it happened and realized he had won. I don't think the organizers knew it was the wrong kid either.

That said, the organizers are dicks and should pay up either way. Why hold a contest like that when you're too farkin' broke to cover it. Insurance or otherwise. They should be arrested for fraud.
 
2011-08-16 09:15:29 AM
draa:That said, the organizers are dicks and should pay up either way. Why hold a contest like that when you're too farkin' broke to cover it. Insurance or otherwise. They should be arrested for fraud.

That's just a stupid comment. This happened at a charity fundraiser. Put yourself in the organizer's shoes, or in the shoes of one of the other people who attended and contributed to the fundraiser. If this raffle had a rule that indicated that the person whose name is on the ticket must take the shot (if there isn't such a rule, the kid will get paid), you're saying that the charity (the "organizer") should take the money that everyone else paid to charity and reach into its own pocket (if there wasn't enough raised to cover the $50K) and pay the money to the kid who broke the rules? I think that would be a remarkably stupid thing to do and would probably be illegal (assuming that the organizer is a tax exempt organization). If I had contributed to the charity, that would piss me off. If I was one of the kids who benefits from the charity, that would piss me off.

I'm not saying that what this kid did was terrible. But, I think it's absurd to say that the charity (and the intended beneficiaries of the charity) should be punished if the kid broke the rules of the contest...however minor the violation.
 
Displayed 50 of 51 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report