Correction on Previous Rangers Article
Dissatisfaction is unaccepted, so since I only received negative comments, I will try to satisfy my fellow HTR members. So, I will make this clear, simple, and easy to understand what my main points were in my previous article.
1) Lindros did not have his bell rung, which is a fact. Update: Lindros might play tonight against the LA Kings.
2a) In my previous posts against officials, yes I did include Rangers because I witnessed the pathetic calls done by the refs on the Rangers, but some people forgot that those posts had one main idea. The main idea was to share the pathetic performances of the refs and to hear other comments from other fans about refs calling bad calls on their teams. Some people actually understood my point, especially Red Wings fans, and shared their opinions as well. I also mentioned in my comments in those previous articles that “I could care less if it was the Rangers”. Try to understand that my points are not saying that the officials are against the Rangers. My points say that the officials are HUMILIATING the league. I cannot watch a Red Wings game, I cannot watch a San Jose game, I don’t receive those local channels. To tell you the truth MantaRay, I’ve seen the refs making pathetic calls on the Devils and the Islanders. So, I am not only talking about the Rangers v Refs. I am using Rangers games as examples, back ups, and information.
2b) Team-A scores a goal. The puck was kicked in, and it slid under the net, side of the net. The ref called it a goal, but it was going to be reviewed. The goal officials look at the many camera views and call it a goal. During that period of time, the replay was shown on the scoreboard, but before showing the puck being kicked and going under the net, it was taken off the scoreboard. Team-B is angry and reacts on the bench. The refs make the right decision by going for a 2nd review of the goal. The cameraman takes a shot on the goal official who is observing what Team-B’s reaction would be, with the binoculars. As in, “is Team-B going to accept the call?”. They later reviewed the goal again and surprisingly it only took less than one minute to disallow it. You tell me if something strange was going on. I don’t care who Team-B or Team-A is, the goal officials tried to fool Team-B. That pretty much makes my point clear.
3) Knee to knee calls conclude in a match penalty, and usually a 1 to 4 game suspension. I’ve often seen players, and yes I’ve seen Lindros do this too, sticking their legs out and trip the other player. If that is strictly against the rules and results in a match penalty, then the refs should be calling it every time it happens. I’ve seen refs let the play go on, or not calling those knee to knee plays because they already called too many penalties.
4) Rangers are 7-0 without Lindros on the line-up. As a hockey fan, if I would see the Flames go 7-0 without Iginla, I would take it as a good thing. It is a good sign for the Rangers that they are capable of winning games without Lindros. There is not much to criticize about this, but to only conclude that the Rangers are capable of winning. Do the Rangers still need Lindros? Obviously, yes, only a complete retard would even question that. That simply makes my point clear. My other point is that when the Rangers play without this combo (combination) of Lindros, Fleury, Messier, and Richter (not playing), they are undefeated. It is a true statement. The Rangers are not undefeated when Lindros, Messier, Fleury, and Blackburn are not playing, but they hold a winning record for that. What is there to criticize about this? I don’t know. If I would read the Devils had the same situation happen, I have no reason to even criticize the writer for making that point. It is good information. It actually shows that the team is actually a real team, or playing like a real team . Was this hard to understand now? I could care less what criticism I get for saying that the Rangers are playing like a team. To me, they are playing like a real team. The standings are good, the Rangers are doing very well in the “league leaders” statistics, and they proved that they are capable of winning when missing players. If the Islanders would be 7-0 without Yashin, and if they win games when Parrish, Yashin, Peca, and Osgood are not on the ice, well then they prove that they are capable of winning without those players. My point is not saying that they win without those players, even if they are injured for the rest of the season. My point is saying that the Rangers are capable of winning without Lindros, or Fleury, or Messier, or when Richter is benched, or when 3 out of those 4 are not playing. Is my point clear enough?
I hope I made my points pretty clear now, and sorry if they were not addressed right in the previous article.