Hawk Posted April 24, 2010 Report Share Posted April 24, 2010 http://www.wgr550.com/Chara-Avoids-Game-6-Suspension/6881828 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted April 24, 2010 Report Share Posted April 24, 2010 http://www.wgr550.com/Chara-Avoids-Game-6-Suspension/6881828 I wonder which lasted longer. Colon Campbell's review of the incident or Larry Quinn's "Thorough review of the organIzation?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted April 24, 2010 Report Share Posted April 24, 2010 Right call, but ... 1) If the positions were reversed, they wouldn't have been so quick to rescind Gaustad's suspension for going after Chara. 2) It was really stupid of Chara to even risk it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawk Posted April 24, 2010 Author Report Share Posted April 24, 2010 I wonder which lasted longer. Colon Campbell's review of the incident or Larry Quinn's "Thorough review of the organIzation?" Glad he didnt get suspended. I want him in there for every agonizing moment. Theirs :death:, not ours!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted April 24, 2010 Report Share Posted April 24, 2010 Right call, but ... 1) If the positions were reversed, they wouldn't have been so quick to rescind Gaustad's suspension for going after Chara. 2) It was really stupid of Chara to even risk it. It surprises me to hear you say that. I think of you as the logical Spock of the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallybarthman Posted April 24, 2010 Report Share Posted April 24, 2010 http://www.wgr550.com/Chara-Avoids-Game-6-Suspension/6881828 It's the right call - I think the rule is there for a good reason but just like they did with Malkin in the finals last year, they'll pull it back. They want it there as a anti-gooning provision but Chara wasn't being anymore of a goon than normal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted April 24, 2010 Report Share Posted April 24, 2010 He scores the winner in game 6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted April 24, 2010 Report Share Posted April 24, 2010 http://m.tsn.ca/src/site?t=TLU1wDO48PaJiyXnH26.vA&sid=tsn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted April 24, 2010 Report Share Posted April 24, 2010 It surprises me to hear you say that. I think of you as the logical Spock of the board. If I were human I believe my response would be "go to ######."... If I were human. As for #2, would it be more fitting had I said "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one" instead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted April 24, 2010 Report Share Posted April 24, 2010 He scores the winner in game 6. I hope you suffer severe stomach cramps for posting this, and that said cramps keep you on the can when Ennis goes coast to coast for the game-winner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted April 24, 2010 Report Share Posted April 24, 2010 I hope you suffer severe stomach cramps for posting this, and that said cramps keep you on the can when Ennis goes coast to coast for the game-winner. I can't be the only one thinking it. This is just the way things work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdwardSauve Posted April 25, 2010 Report Share Posted April 25, 2010 I can't be the only one thinking it. This is just the way things work. Especially to Buffalo teams and fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheChimp Posted April 25, 2010 Report Share Posted April 25, 2010 It's the right call - I think the rule is there for a good reason but just like they did with Malkin in the finals last year, they'll pull it back. They want it there as a anti-gooning provision but Chara wasn't being anymore of a goon than normal. Then they should just remove the ###### rule, then, honestly, how ridiculous can the NHL look? Malkin's actions basically fit ALL the criteria necessary, and the ONLY reason he didn't get suspended was because sitting him would embarass the league that deified his ugly ######. Same with Chara. Any rule that has an "out clause" isn't a rule. The NHL looks like a bunch of idiots for crap like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted April 25, 2010 Report Share Posted April 25, 2010 He scores the winner in game 6. Perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjag Posted April 25, 2010 Report Share Posted April 25, 2010 If I were human I believe my response would be "go to ######."... If I were human. As for #2, would it be more fitting had I said "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one" instead? I believe it was the "needs of the few or one".. Any self respecting Star Trek geek knows that. You're no spock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabresneedaCup Posted April 25, 2010 Report Share Posted April 25, 2010 I believe it was the "needs of the few or one".. Any self respecting Star Trek geek knows that. You're no spock. star trek sucks and so does star wars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted April 25, 2010 Report Share Posted April 25, 2010 star trek sucks and so does star wars dude, weak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabresneedaCup Posted April 25, 2010 Report Share Posted April 25, 2010 dude, weak. oh well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted April 25, 2010 Report Share Posted April 25, 2010 I believe it was the "needs of the few or one".. Any self respecting Star Trek geek knows that. You're no spock. Dang, I did know that, too. You got me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.