Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(USA Today)   Butthurt Russians protest disallowed goal vs USA with sign outside US embassy: "Turn referee into soap"   (ftw.usatoday.com) divider line 83
    More: Dumbass, USA, Russians, Russian hockey, U.S., opinions, Brad Meier, embassy  
•       •       •

1726 clicks; posted to Sports » on 17 Feb 2014 at 1:42 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



83 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-17 01:31:23 PM  
Nice banner.

l.yimg.com
 
2014-02-17 01:38:27 PM  
I'm culturally sensitive enough to accept that "Turn referee into soap" may be idiomatic, but it sure seems stronger than "Get referee glasses".
 
2014-02-17 01:48:22 PM  
Well the referee has obviously upset Santa Claus and will no doubt be getting coal in his stocking.   So there is that repercussion to deal with.
 
2014-02-17 01:49:00 PM  
GOD HATES REFS
 
2014-02-17 01:55:32 PM  
"Butthurt Russians" is the name of my Pussy Riot cover band
 
2014-02-17 01:57:48 PM  

rumpelstiltskin: I'm culturally sensitive enough to accept that "Turn referee into soap" may be idiomatic, but it sure seems stronger than "Get referee glasses".


Also, "Get referee glasses" usually refers to being angry that the ref missed a call that was in the rules.  This is exactly not the case.
 
2014-02-17 01:58:17 PM  
For in depth analysis, we go live to the 1972 U.S. men's basketball team.

Really? REALLY?
 
2014-02-17 02:01:23 PM  

mainstreet62: For in depth analysis, we go live to the 1972 U.S. men's basketball team.

Really? REALLY?


THIS
 
2014-02-17 02:03:08 PM  
Right. And if Datsyuk had won the shootout he would have been the national hero and TJ Oshie would have been the goat.

Still a stupid way to decide a hockey game.
 
2014-02-17 02:03:15 PM  
First ice dancing and now this? How many IOC officials did you yanks grease this year?
 
2014-02-17 02:09:36 PM  
It was the right call under international rules, but since Quick knocked it off himself and then got beat clean, it seemed unfair. I guess that's why the NHL decided to use common sense and judge it per-case when it comes to a dislodged goal.
 
2014-02-17 02:13:46 PM  
ts3.mm.bing.net
 
2014-02-17 02:15:39 PM  

oldfarthenry: First ice dancing and now this? How many IOC officials did you yanks grease this year?


We didn't grease them, Russia did.  However, the NSA has certain recordings and emails.  And as anyone who's played Revolution knows, blackmail beats cash.
 
2014-02-17 02:16:14 PM  
Canada wins 3-1.
 
2014-02-17 02:17:07 PM  
Sorry, that was meant for the Olympic thread.  Mods, please delete the spoiler.
 
2014-02-17 02:19:36 PM  
If my old brain still works properly (doubtful), I'm pretty sure that the Soviets and other Iron Curtain countries were notorious for dislodging the goal accidentallyonpurpose back in the day.  If so - ha ha.
 
2014-02-17 02:29:55 PM  

Optimus Primate: [ts3.mm.bing.net image 480x353]


First thing I thought of too.  Obviously they want to sacrifice him convert his body into lye.
 
2014-02-17 02:29:58 PM  
If it had been an American goal disallowed the US would be biatching and crying a whole lot worse than the Russians are.
 
2014-02-17 02:34:54 PM  
Russian sports butthurt, a tradition since, well, forever
 
2014-02-17 02:41:12 PM  
To be fair id be a little butthurt if it had been the other way around. On the other hand SUCK IT PUTIN! YOU BIG MEANIE HEAD!
 
2014-02-17 02:42:16 PM  
Yes, too bad there was only the entire 3rd period to overcome the tyranny of a correct rule interpretation.  Such a rip.
 
2014-02-17 02:51:37 PM  

Agatha Crispy: If it had been an American goal disallowed the US would be biatching and crying a whole lot worse than the Russians are.


I've never seen Americans show up at a protest in front if an embassy over a controversial call in a spring event.
 
2014-02-17 02:51:55 PM  

Agatha Crispy: If it had been an American goal disallowed the US would be biatching and crying a whole lot worse than the Russians are.


Sure, but let's be fair...our sports whining infrastructure is light years ahead of theirs.
 
2014-02-17 02:52:18 PM  

meanmutton: Agatha Crispy: If it had been an American goal disallowed the US would be biatching and crying a whole lot worse than the Russians are.

I've never seen Americans show up at a protest in front if an embassy over a controversial call in a spring event.


Stupid Swype. "in front of" and "in a sporting event".
 
2014-02-17 02:53:41 PM  
SOAP AND CHANGE!
 
2014-02-17 02:55:28 PM  

The Muthaship: Agatha Crispy: If it had been an American goal disallowed the US would be biatching and crying a whole lot worse than the Russians are.

Sure, but let's be fair...our sports whining infrastructure is light years ahead of theirs.


The story would have its own theme music and dueling headline names.
 
2014-02-17 02:59:21 PM  
Go drink another gallon of vodka and shut up, crybabies.
 
2014-02-17 03:06:22 PM  

meanmutton: meanmutton: Agatha Crispy: If it had been an American goal disallowed the US would be biatching and crying a whole lot worse than the Russians are.

I've never seen Americans show up at a protest in front if an embassy over a controversial call in a spring event.

Stupid Swype. "in front of" and "in a sporting event".


What kind of sports would be included in the Spring Olympics?  Or the Autumn ones?  Come up with enough, and they could have an Olympics every year.
 
2014-02-17 03:07:41 PM  
I have no problem with the correct interpretation of the rule being applied here, but my question is, why isn't play stopped the instant the goal becomes dislodged, and at that moment the goal is re-aligned?  If you wait until "the next stoppage of play", what if there IS no "next stoppage of play"?

Since it's impossible for the team attacking the dislodged goal to score, while it is, I assume possible for the team attacking the non-dislodged goal to score, isn't that an incredibly unfair advantage for the latter team?  I am also assuming the game clock isn't reset to the point where the net became dislodged why play is stopped and the goal is re-aligned?

Put another way, let's say the goal becomes dislodged at the 5:00 mark.  Play continues uninterrupted until the Russians score at the 1:00 mark.  The goal is disqualified.  Is the clock reset to 5:00?  What if the Americans score on the other goal at the 1:00 mark.  Does the goal count?  So for four minutes, the Americans are playing with the advantage of "any goal we score counts, but any goal you score does not."

That can't be right, can it?
 
2014-02-17 03:09:00 PM  
Also, granted, I don't watch much hockey, but is it legal to swing your stick like a baseball bat?
 
2014-02-17 03:12:43 PM  

Slow To Return: Also, granted, I don't watch much hockey, but is it legal to swing your stick like a baseball bat?


As long as you don't hit someone or it's not a high stick, yes.
 
2014-02-17 03:14:51 PM  

Slow To Return: I have no problem with the correct interpretation of the rule being applied here, but my question is, why isn't play stopped the instant the goal becomes dislodged, and at that moment the goal is re-aligned?  If you wait until "the next stoppage of play", what if there IS no "next stoppage of play"?

Since it's impossible for the team attacking the dislodged goal to score, while it is, I assume possible for the team attacking the non-dislodged goal to score, isn't that an incredibly unfair advantage for the latter team?  I am also assuming the game clock isn't reset to the point where the net became dislodged why play is stopped and the goal is re-aligned?

Put another way, let's say the goal becomes dislodged at the 5:00 mark.  Play continues uninterrupted until the Russians score at the 1:00 mark.  The goal is disqualified.  Is the clock reset to 5:00?  What if the Americans score on the other goal at the 1:00 mark.  Does the goal count?  So for four minutes, the Americans are playing with the advantage of "any goal we score counts, but any goal you score does not."

That can't be right, can it?


Play is always stopped the second the net is off, that's the rule. Nobody noticed it was off, that's why play continued. In the NHL I believe there is some leway for judgement calls like this, but there's none in international play.
/ In the other scenario you mention, as the play goes down to the other end for a goal Quick notices his net is off slightly and resets it. But, since nobody else would have noticed the net was off back at the Americans' end -- and it had no impact on the play -- there's no controversy.
 
2014-02-17 03:17:18 PM  

TeamEd: Play is always stopped the second the net is off, that's the rule.


Ok, that makes sense - thanks!
 
2014-02-17 03:18:27 PM  

Slow To Return: Also, granted, I don't watch much hockey, but is it legal to swing your stick like a baseball bat?


Yes.

But, if you do it carelessly and hit someone you risk a penalty for slashing.

And, if you contact the puck above the crossbar on a scoring chance or your own shoulder in open play, that's ruled a high stick. A goal from a high stick will be called back. In open play, a high stick that passes the puck to yourself or a teammate leads to a face off.
 
2014-02-17 03:19:01 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: SOAP AND CHANGE!


That right there is funny.
 
2014-02-17 03:20:27 PM  

TeamEd: Play is always stopped the second the net is off, that's the rule. Nobody noticed it was off, that's why play continued. In the NHL I believe there is some leway for judgement calls like this, but there's none in international play.


Out of curiosity, do you know at what time the net became dislodged, at what time the goal was scored/disallowed, and if the clock was reset at all when play was resumed?

Did the Russians lose an appreciable amount of "score-able" time?
 
2014-02-17 03:22:01 PM  
www.blogher.com
sunflower-soap.com

Next lesson will be: How is babby formed.
 
2014-02-17 03:23:02 PM  

TeamEd: And, if you contact the puck above the crossbar on a scoring chance or your own shoulder in open play, that's ruled a high stick. A goal from a high stick will be called back.


Thanks again!  In the video I watched, it looked like the Russian swatted the puck out of the air with his stick, and I didn't think that was allowed.  But upon further reading, it sounds like it was determined that he didn't make contact or deflect the puck (though he certainly seemed to be trying)
 
2014-02-17 03:31:40 PM  

Slow To Return: I have no problem with the correct interpretation of the rule being applied here, but my question is, why isn't play stopped the instant the goal becomes dislodged, and at that moment the goal is re-aligned?  If you wait until "the next stoppage of play", what if there IS no "next stoppage of play"?

Since it's impossible for the team attacking the dislodged goal to score, while it is, I assume possible for the team attacking the non-dislodged goal to score, isn't that an incredibly unfair advantage for the latter team?  I am also assuming the game clock isn't reset to the point where the net became dislodged why play is stopped and the goal is re-aligned?

Put another way, let's say the goal becomes dislodged at the 5:00 mark.  Play continues uninterrupted until the Russians score at the 1:00 mark.  The goal is disqualified.  Is the clock reset to 5:00?  What if the Americans score on the other goal at the 1:00 mark.  Does the goal count?  So for four minutes, the Americans are playing with the advantage of "any goal we score counts, but any goal you score does not."

That can't be right, can it?


If you can't get a shot on net in 4 minutes, the net being off the posts is not your biggest problem.

Plus, as the case was in Saturday's game, an apparent goal was the reason they found the net was out of place.

All you'd need to fix this is a couple of sensors hooked into the goal judge's light. They lose contact? A different color or pattern light comes on, that everyone can see.
 
2014-02-17 03:32:37 PM  

Slow To Return: TeamEd: Play is always stopped the second the net is off, that's the rule. Nobody noticed it was off, that's why play continued. In the NHL I believe there is some leway for judgement calls like this, but there's none in international play.

Out of curiosity, do you know at what time the net became dislodged, at what time the goal was scored/disallowed, and if the clock was reset at all when play was resumed?

Did the Russians lose an appreciable amount of "score-able" time?


That's actually a good question.  If no one noticed but the net was in a position to disallow a goal for an extended period then that puts Russia in a disadvantageous situation.  That said, no goals went in aside from that one so it really didn't put them in a disadvantageous situation, except for that it did.  I guess you can really only argue it if someone notices, keeps the play alive because they have a net that is unable to be scored upon, which didn't happen.  Except that maybe it did and no one on the US said it did.

/my head hurts
 
2014-02-17 03:42:13 PM  

Polish Hussar: Slow To Return: Also, granted, I don't watch much hockey, but is it legal to swing your stick like a baseball bat?

As long as you don't hit someone or it's not a high stick, yes.


We watched the replay of the game. At one point, a Russian was on the ice, belly down, and an American player was chopping at his neck -- repeatedly -- with his stick. I presume ice hockey is a form of CGI savagery and that really didn't involve humans.
 
2014-02-17 03:42:40 PM  

Slow To Return: TeamEd: And, if you contact the puck above the crossbar on a scoring chance or your own shoulder in open play, that's ruled a high stick. A goal from a high stick will be called back.

Thanks again!  In the video I watched, it looked like the Russian swatted the puck out of the air with his stick, and I didn't think that was allowed.  But upon further reading, it sounds like it was determined that he didn't make contact or deflect the puck (though he certainly seemed to be trying)


Hard to tell from the video, but that looks like a legal attempt to deflect the puck to me. Usually, in possible high stick situations with inconclusive video the offensive player will get the benefit of the doubt.

I'd be very, very surprised if that goal would have been called off for a high stick.
 
2014-02-17 03:44:55 PM  

yakmans_dad: We watched the replay of the game. At one point, a Russian was on the ice, belly down, and an American player was chopping at his neck -- repeatedly -- with his stick. I presume ice hockey is a form of CGI savagery and that really didn't involve humans


You have poor eyesight, as they showed a replay of that as well.

The Russian player was on his stomach holding onto the USA's player stick.  The USA player was shoving the Russian player in the back repeatedly to get him to release his stick.

They both should have been given penalties on the play...especially in olympic hockey.
 
2014-02-17 03:52:39 PM  

snowybunting: It was the right call under international rules, but since Quick knocked it off himself and then got beat clean, it seemed unfair. I guess that's why the NHL decided to use common sense and judge it per-case when it comes to a dislodged goal.


Woah, woah, woah, let's not get hasty here...

Are you really saying that Bergman and Co. got something right?
 
2014-02-17 03:54:22 PM  

fastbow: snowybunting: It was the right call under international rules, but since Quick knocked it off himself and then got beat clean, it seemed unfair. I guess that's why the NHL decided to use common sense and judge it per-case when it comes to a dislodged goal.

Woah, woah, woah, let's not get hasty here...

Are you really saying that Bergman and Co. got something right?


The thing is, I don't know if I've ever seen this enforced on the NHL (the net being off and they're still allowing the goal).

I've seen times in the NHL where the net barely comes off the peg right before the puck goes in and they disallow the goal.
 
2014-02-17 03:59:31 PM  
I might have to adopt this idiom.
 
2014-02-17 04:06:38 PM  
Ha, now the Russians can suffer from NHL officiating
 
2014-02-17 04:13:28 PM  
I'd be pissed, too, but rules are rules and sometimes things don't go your way.

In other words, get over it, Ivan.
 
2014-02-17 04:16:23 PM  
If Russia wants to biatch, biatch at the IIHF for having a non-nonsensical rule regarding that situation. If it was the NHL, that goal would've counted but in international rules, it's no goal.

The referee conferred with the video review officials and they called it no goal. It's not the American referee's fault (though I agree, he shouldn't have been calling that game), it's not the off-ice official's fault, it's the rule makers' fault.
 
2014-02-17 04:23:56 PM  
You know who else turned people into soap.
 
Displayed 50 of 83 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report