| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 05/01/2011 : 18:16:56
http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun/blogs/puckworld/archive/2011/05/01/canucks-green-men-drawing-ire-of-nhl.aspx
I'm at a loss for words...surely the NHL has other things to think about than 2 guys in green leotards doing handstands in front of the penalty box? |
| 40 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 05/11/2011 : 18:05:45
I think most of us knew what you meant Beans 
Once you get to the final-4, it becomes difficult to pick winners. By this point, the remaining teams are all there for a reason, and are either good teams or on some kind of serious hotstreak.
The 3 teams left in the west finished 1-2-3 in the conference, and only differed by 5 wins over the whole season - any of those teams would be deserving to be in the finals. It will be very tough for VAN to beat either one.
As beans says - if VAN can play the way they did during the regular season, I don't think there is anyone that stands in their way. If they play any other way, things could get messy.
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 05/11/2011 : 17:04:40
My point was that when going into almost any series, one can pick between the teams as one is better than the other. People can disagree with who is better than who or by how much, but there is normally a pick.
The Detroit/Vancouver/San Jose question is different as each of these teams has been inconsistent. The best team is most likely Vancouver, but they are not playing the best.
That was my point behind the IF's. This series is the not the easiest to pick a winner at as it isn't based on what team is the best. |
| Guest4178 |
Posted - 05/11/2011 : 14:27:57
I don't mean to be a smart aleck (which is different than a "smart Alex – that's a compliment by the way), but what's with all the IF'S?
I can say that the Canucks will beat Detroit in Game 7 IF they score more goals than the Wings. I can also say that San Jose will beat whoever they meet in the 3rd round IF they win 4 games before the other team does.
Sports is a game of IF's, and while I understand all of IF's as they relate to factors determining an outcome, it's a very qualified way of making a prediction or series of predictions.
Most outcomes are not a certainty, and there are an almost unlimited number of IF's to be considered. Some have been mentioned, but what about goaltending, special teams, injuries, coaching, etc. Surely these matter too!
Personally, I have a hard time picking who's going to win a game or series, so I rarely offer my opinion. (Unless prodded.) Sports is more of a crapshot than we realize sometimes, and maybe I should take the "IF" approach. It's a lot easier to say IF a team plays well, they will win, than to go out on a limb and say that Team "X" will beat Team "Y," and here's why they will do so in the next round. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 05/11/2011 : 09:33:03
The Western Finals will be the biggest 'if' series in the past number of years.
IF Vancouver plays like the did in the regular season, they will win.
IF the Canucks continue to depend almost exlusively on Kesler, they will lose.
IF Detroit wins their series, Vancouver is in trouble regardless.
IF the San Jose of the first 3 games of their series with Detroit play an entire series against Vancouver, SJ will win.
IF Vancouver plays like they did against Chicago, they will lose to either team.
IF, IF, IF, IF, IF, IF, IF, IF, IF, IF, IF, IF, IF, IF, IF |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 05/11/2011 : 00:16:03
quote:
Originally posted by The Duke
Didn`t mean to ruffle any feathers here guys. It just seems to me that San Jose and Detriot are very hungry overall and look like they are playing much better hockey...maybe they are not...but it sure looks that way.
I just don't get that? One team has blown a 3 game lead and the other spotted their competition a 3 game lead??? Calling SJ "hungry" is like calling the Canucks "hungry" after they blew their 3 game lead vs Chi? Was ANYONE saying that then? NOPE!
I guess i can sorta see calling Detroit "hungry", i mean, they have fought back from 0-3 to force game 7, but i seriously don't think either of these teams is playing anything close to their potential! |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 05/10/2011 : 20:37:30
quote:
Didn`t mean to ruffle any feathers here guys
Oh, I'm pretty sure that ya did Duke , but thats OK, we expect it from ya.
All the teams left in the west look pretty hungry right now, the same way the Canucks were in game 6. I'm pretty happy with the way they played, and I like our chances against either DET or SJ - honestly neither one has looked terribly convincing in their series so far.
Have a great time in Labrador. |
| The Duke |
Posted - 05/10/2011 : 19:14:39
Didn`t mean to ruffle any feathers here guys. It just seems to me that San Jose and Detriot are very hungry overall and look like they are playing much better hockey...maybe they are not...but it sure looks that way.
Anyway, i`m off to the big land toworrow ( Labrador ), new construction site on the go. Will continue chatting if i get any service on my laptop...where i`m going for a month at a time, who knows.
I am still a any Canadian team first fan you know....but i still call a spade a spade...in my view ( opinion ) anyway.....later |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 05/10/2011 : 07:59:10
quote:
Lack of action on the ice is right Mr Boogedy. Sorry Alex and Nuxfan but i think your Canucks have gone as far as they can. I predict ( if they meet San Jose ), the Sharks win 4 straight.
If Van plays this way againist the Sharks (or wings ) i think it will be a very quick series. Keslers line cannot beat a team clicking on all clyinders.....what in hell are the Sedins doing ??? do they know this is the playoffs....a chicken has a bigger heart than what these guys are displaying, disgusting.
I hear it all the time about the Euro thing but it doesn`t stop Ovie, Datsyuk, Zetterburg and many others from playing. Those guys ( the Sedins ) are much, much better than they are showing...guess they don`t really give a sh**.
VAN won't play that way against the Sharks or Wings, because they won't have to - neither one is NSH.
Duke, I can only assume you were watching the series, so you know that NSH plays a particular style. It is heavily defensive in nature, trap-like, and they give up very little in the way of chances. NSH plays a style of hockey that unfortunately, is very good at foiling the twins cycle and puck control game, hence they didn't play particularly well or rack up a large number of points - historically this is the case too, in the past few regular seasons. They still did well on the PP (where they had some room), and got a fair number of chances, so I'm generally happy with their effort.
Fortunatly for VAN, while NSH had an answer for the Sedin's, they had none for Kelser/Raymond/Higgins/Hansen/Ehrhoff, and could not get past Hamhuis and Beiksa very well, and the Canucks prevailed - chalk up a win for team depth. That same team depth will come into play vs their next opponent. |
| Guest8149 |
Posted - 05/09/2011 : 23:54:42
I really get a kick out of comments made like "if they continue to play that way," and comparing it to when a team is "firing on all cylinders." I don't know any person, player or team who operates at full capacity all the time. (Or at low capacity, especially for elite athletes.)
Everyone including top sports athletes have "up days" and "off days," and even the best of the best have off days.
To sum it up, if the last place Oilers were "firing on all cylinders," they could beat the first place overall Canucks if Vancouver "continued to play a certain way" or whatever that means. But surely, most people would agree that any two teams are capable of optimum or less than optimum levels of performance, and barring a fluke occurrence, the better team (in this case the Canucks) would prevail in most games against a lesser opponent. To suggest otherwise is Illogical.
To make the comment that the Canucks will lose if they continue to play a certain way while suggesting that their opponent will be "firing on all cylinders" sounds more like wishful thinking than real prognosticating.
|
| Alex116 |
Posted - 05/09/2011 : 22:39:22
quote:
Originally posted by The Duke
Sorry Alex and Nuxfan but i think your Canucks have gone as far as they can. I predict ( if they meet San Jose ), the Sharks win 4 straight.
No need to apologize really. You may even be correct that the Sharks will beat the Canucks (if they can finish off Detroit). I certainly wouldn't be willing to bet on any team sweeping any team at this point. Not saying it can't happen, but it's certainly not a prediction i'd be willing to make!!!
quote:
Originally posted by The Duke
If Van plays this way againist the Sharks (or wings ) i think it will be a very quick series. Keslers line cannot beat a team clicking on all clyinders....
Ummm, first of all, when you say "if Van plays this way", what are you getting at? What do you mean by "this way"? Are you referring to the way they played the entire series vs Nashville, or are you specifically referring to tonights game? Either way, you do realize that teams play different styles vs different teams, right? I'd argue that Vancouver was the better team for 90% of the minutes played in this series, but ran into a hot goalie. Unlike Washington and Pittsburgh last year, they found a way to scrape out the 4 wins needed to get by him (and the Preds). I don't know any hockey fan who thought this series would be pretty, or fun to watch. That's just Pred's hockey.
Secondly, which team "firing on all cylinders" are you referencing??? The Sharks? Those same Sharks who've lost 2 straight after having Detroit on the ropes? Those same Sharks who gave up 3 unanswered 3rd period goals last night, to throw away their chance to clinch with a little extra rest? You know, that team with one of their best players slumping and not having a point in the entire 5 games of this series (Marleau)??
Or are you talking about that Red Wings team who spotted the Sharks a 3-0 lead in the series only to have fought back to stave off elimination, still needing to win 2 more just to advance.
Duke, you and i obviously have different opinoins on what consists of "firing on all cylinders".
quote:
Originally posted by The Duke
What in hell are the Sedins doing ??? do they know this is the playoffs....a chicken has a bigger heart than what these guys are displaying, disgusting.
The Sedin's, they're def not playing all that well right now, i won't argue that. Even though Hank is struggling, Daniel's play hasn't been as bad as it may seem, considering his bro has struggled mightily. Either way, they'll need to be better for the Canucks to go further. Then again, a lot of people said that vs Nashville? What's scary is, what if they both return to regular season form?
Whatever it is that's affecting them, i'm pretty sure it's not that they "don't give a sh*t"!!! That's just a silly comment. |
| Guest8149 |
Posted - 05/09/2011 : 21:57:50
quote:
Originally posted by The Duke
Sorry Alex and Nuxfan but i think your Canucks have gone as far as they can. I predict ( if they meet San Jose ), the Sharks win 4 straight.
Care to make a bet? A few "pundits" on this site said the same thing about the Canucks when they met up with the Hawks in the first round.
I'm not silly enough to suggest that the Canucks are overwhelming favourites to win any playoff round, but as a statistician, I considered them a 70% favourite to win the first round, and about a 30% favourite to go all the way to win the cup. (Stats which have proven themselves over a period of time.)
As far as the Sharks beating the Canucks "4 games straight" the next round, I don't see it happening. It's worth noting that the Sharks need to beat Detroit first to do so. And sure, the Canucks have their flaws, but so do the Sharks or Wings.
I would pick the Canucks to beat either opponent in the 3rd round, but I wouldn't be so bold as to pick a 4-game sweep. And while I would pick Vancouver to advance to the Stanley Cup Finals, I wouldn't claim any absoluteness in my prediction. After all, anything can happen in sports and taking the Canucks-Predators series as an example, it was a very close series with essentially every game a one-goal game. This series could have actually gone either way, but the best team won, and that doesn't always happen.
|
| The Duke |
Posted - 05/09/2011 : 20:07:32
Lack of action on the ice is right Mr Boogedy. Sorry Alex and Nuxfan but i think your Canucks have gone as far as they can. I predict ( if they meet San Jose ), the Sharks win 4 straight.
If Van plays this way againist the Sharks (or wings ) i think it will be a very quick series. Keslers line cannot beat a team clicking on all clyinders.....what in hell are the Sedins doing ??? do they know this is the playoffs....a chicken has a bigger heart than what these guys are displaying, disgusting.
I hear it all the time about the Euro thing but it doesn`t stop Ovie, Datsyuk, Zetterburg and many others from playing. Those guys ( the Sedins ) are much, much better than they are showing...guess they don`t really give a sh**. |
| Statman |
Posted - 05/09/2011 : 00:49:19
quote:
I think the next logical step would obviously be cheerleaders in green leotards showing off their undercarriages...
I think you've really hit on something there! Lol. |
| MrBoogedy |
Posted - 05/08/2011 : 21:43:43
I'm starting to think that the green men are almost as entertaining as the action ( or lack thereof) on the ice. The first time i saw them 'showing off their undercarriage' i thought it was hilarious.
I think the next logical step would obviously be cheerleaders in green leotards showing off their undercarriages... |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 05/08/2011 : 21:14:32
statman.....the cardboard cutout of the handstand had me laughing my a** off! Brilliant!! |
| Oilearl |
Posted - 05/08/2011 : 12:38:23
The green men are an extra bonus for my kids when I am at Canuck games they absolutely are thrilled by their antics. Personally it makes no difference to me I'm more interested in the action on the ice not in the stands period.
To the guest who called Oiler fans babies be careful you live in a glass house dude!!!!! |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 05/08/2011 : 06:17:53
The Green Dorks are an acquired taste that I have not acquired. That being said, I do appreciate their creativity and could see the appeal they have to some. However, that does not give them any advantages to how they may act compared to other fans.
To that, I totally appreciate they have followed the NHL's direction at the same time as giving them the 'eff you.' If the NHL says 'don't do X' and they stop doing 'X' and replace it with something making fun of 'X', nothing could be better.
I still don't like them, but good on these guys for doing things the right way. |
| Statman |
Posted - 05/08/2011 : 01:05:22
I have this to say about the green men; They certainly are creative. They used to do handstands up against the glass to show off their...umm...undercarriage to the guy in the box, but were told to stop doing that, so tonight they show up with a cardboard cutout of one of them doing that same handstand. Freaking brilliant!
I undertand many people don't like them, but most in the Canuck community do, and the real beauty of this is that this has come from the fans, not the team marketing department. |
| 99pickles |
Posted - 05/07/2011 : 15:08:22
Whether clad in tights or not, there is standard of conduct to be adhered to when attempting to get the attention of players on the bench or in the box.
If you go really far with it - or too far with it - you run the risk of getting Domi'd or O'Reilly'd ...justifiably so, perhaps.
Anyone else read that recent article where Marty Turco, from the visiting team bench, bet a fan five bucks on a shootout attempt in Montreal? It really is about how respectful you act.
I don't believe banging on the glass of the penalty box (or players' bench) would be viewed as extremely respectful.
Funny thing is....why don't they antagonize through the glass at the team bench in the same manner as well?? Because the result would be mayhem. Therefore, they themselves know that their behaviour can be viewed as antagonizing, or questionable at least..
That being said, these guys are funny as all hell!! My favourite was when they held up Santa's naughty list and it had Phaneuf's name at the top of the list of Leaf names! Hilarious!! |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 05/05/2011 : 11:28:14
7931...........it's always refreshing to see an open minded / unbiased opinion. Thank you for that. It's nice to see someone actually understands what i was saying! |
| Guest7931 |
Posted - 05/04/2011 : 20:47:52
Once again, I'm an Oilers fan, but I can't help but agree with Alex's logic.
"People shouldn't throw stones if they live in glass houses" goes the saying, and if you want to criticize the green men in Vancouver, what about cheerleaders at a hockey game? Personally I don't have a big problem with the green men, as long as they don't cross the line by banging on the glass or hurling insults at the players in the penalty box. I agree with Beans (and a few others) that the rules around the penalty box and players benches need to be different.
One important distinction between the green men and the cheerleaders worth noting - as far as I know, the green men are there on their own, and not part of the Canucks marketing program. The same cannot be said about the Oilers cheer team.
Regardless, every team has silly ideas (and silly fans), so if you want to hang your hat on hating a team because of the antics of a few fans, save your "rocks." Instead, you should stick to "throwing your stones" at the things you hate about a team like its players, coaches, playing style or their record. Otherwise, it all seems petty to me! |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 05/04/2011 : 17:45:47
quote:
Originally posted by OILINONTARIO
No. You got that backwards. I don't hate the Canucks because of the green dorks (kinda like that, thanks Beans). I hate them despite the 'tarded 'tards (that one's not bad either).
Whatever, though. I am sure these guys bring some value to the average game that baser minds find enthralling. In my "unworthy" opinion, they do not.
The Oil WILL make the playoffs in 2012.
You don't read well if what's in BOLD above is what you got from my post.
I actually said you simply choose to hate the green guys BECAUSE you already hate the Canucks. Jeez, i thought i made it simple with my Oilers example.....apparently not? |
| OILINONTARIO |
Posted - 05/04/2011 : 17:40:47
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
OIO....my whole point was that you said yourself, that the reason you hate the green men is because you hate the Canucks. This hatred also skews your opinion on pretty much everything else to do with the conversation. That's all, no biggie. It's just that when a post is thrown out there to discuss and share peoples opinions on, yours is somewhat unworthy when you consider your admitted hatred.
It's be like me saying i think the Oilers are a clown outfit for hiring young girls as cheerleaders and then admitting that the ONLY reason i feel that way is because i hate the Oilers.
**FTR, i don't hate the Oilers, and i could care less about the cheerleaders. I was just making an example you might easily understand.
No. You got that backwards. I don't hate the Canucks because of the green dorks (kinda like that, thanks Beans). I hate them despite the 'tarded 'tards (that one's not bad either).
Whatever, though. I am sure these guys bring some value to the average game that baser minds find enthralling. In my "unworthy" opinion, they do not.
The Oil WILL make the playoffs in 2012. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 05/04/2011 : 15:00:15
OIO....my whole point was that you said yourself, that the reason you hate the green men is because you hate the Canucks. This hatred also skews your opinion on pretty much everything else to do with the conversation. That's all, no biggie. It's just that when a post is thrown out there to discuss and share peoples opinions on, yours is somewhat unworthy when you consider your admitted hatred.
It's be like me saying i think the Oilers are a clown outfit for hiring young girls as cheerleaders and then admitting that the ONLY reason i feel that way is because i hate the Oilers.
**FTR, i don't hate the Oilers, and i could care less about the cheerleaders. I was just making an example you might easily understand. |
| OILINONTARIO |
Posted - 05/04/2011 : 14:39:03
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
It's not a personal attack, it's just a saying. Pretty sure that's not against forum rules. Had i said what i really wanted to about what he said, then surely that would have broken the rules.
Go for it, friend. I don't apologize for my opinions, and maintain that this phenomenon is isolated in Vancouver. You have a beautiful city, and a talented NHL team, but I don't like guys in green leotards who harass opposing teams' players in the penalty box, and don't understand those who find it tolerable and/or entertaining.
I also don't understand why you thought you had to point out that my hatred for the Canucks skewed my opinion on this issue. I clearly stated that myself. What's the big deal? People are allowed to hate the Leafs, and that's it? Rarely do I see such huffing and puffing over trash talk. I guess there will be plenty more after the playoffs, though.
The Oil WILL make the playoffs in 2012. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 05/03/2011 : 21:27:17
looks like its spreading - I'm sure I saw some "orange men" at the PHI/BOS game the other night, and did I catch a "yellow man" in NSH tonight? |
| Guest7931 |
Posted - 05/03/2011 : 20:16:18
I'm an Oilers fan and I find myself agreeing with Alex.
I'm guessing that certain Oiler fans would think it was cool if it was the other way around. (Oiler fans dressed up like the men in green taunting opposing players in the penalty box.)
I especially agree with Alex's comments about the shallowness of certain "fans." To really believe that one team's fans are somehow inferior (or superior) to another team's fans is actually quite myopic. It's kinda like the fans who think all of "their" players are good guys who can do no harm, while players on the opposing teams are all bad guys. I don't get it, but I don't really care too much either. (Well, maybe I care just enough to spend two minutes making this posting!) |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 05/03/2011 : 20:14:25
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Couple of things:
-Although OilfaninOntario is an admitted Canuck hater, he has a very valid point that no other stadium(at least I am aware of) have fans of this nature that are known for their antics towards other teams. Not specific fans like the Green Dorks anyway. Prove me wrong on this, please.
Never said there were any other "specific fans" in other arena's so if that comment was directed at me, it's way off. I simply said that his saying that he's a Canuck hater AND then saying THAT'S what had led him to hate the Green Guys says enough to take his opinion for what it's worth.....nuthin'! It's pretty obvious that most fans who despise a team will hate pretty much everything to do with them. Hate-on the "LUUU" chant, hate-on the Green Men, etc, etc. because you're a Canuck hater, i get it. It's just that when someone says outright he hates the Green Men BECAUSE of his hatred of the Canucks really has a closed mind opinion on the debate at hand, that being, should these guys be allowed to do what they do. Get it?
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
-Anyone can have what ever high horse they want. If someone wants to dog Canucks fans for supporting these tools, that is their opinion. It may be your opinion to support these fine, upstanding fans in green leotards. You can't say someone should get off their high horse simple because they disagree with what you are saying on your high horse. What is that greek philosopher’s name??? Hipowhat??
You're actually very wrong here. I can in fact tell someone to get off their high horse, in fact, i did earlier today . It's not a personal attack, it's just a saying. Pretty sure that's not against forum rules. Had i said what i really wanted to about what he said, then surely that would have broken the rules.
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
-Alex, finally, how many times do I have to say 'penalty box" before people read it. There is a specific and defined difference in the expectation of fans around the penalty box and players box than any other place in the arena. Like it or not, it is there. No one has been able to prove other wise. No one is saying keep your mouth shut. Just don't talk smack or touch the glass at the penalty box.
Get it??
Get what? How is this directed at me? Because i said "i'm still lost on the fact that there's a rule "not to talk to the players"?? I love how in your quote above, you make it seem like all you're talking about is banging on the glass. You clearly just said, "No one is saying keep your mouth shut." when earlier today you said:
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
The NHL's stipulations were simple. Don't talk to the players and don't touch the glass of the penalty box.
Your earlier quote says "don't talk to the players". I mention i'm surprised that's not allowed. You follow with "no one's saying keep your mouth shut, blah, blah, blah...." and it's ME, who doesn't "get it"? Sheesh.....
Becoming a Leaf fan is starting to take it's toll i think? |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 05/03/2011 : 18:51:43
Couple of things:
-Slozo will pay for each time some meatball calls me a Leafs fan. I am counting.
-Although OilfaninOntario is an admitted Canuck hater, he has a very valid point that no other stadium(at least I am aware of) have fans of this nature that are known for their antics towards other teams. Not specific fans like the Green Dorks anyway. Prove me wrong on this, please.
-Anyone can have what ever high horse they want. If someone wants to dog Canucks fans for supporting these tools, that is their opinion. It may be your opinion to support these fine, upstanding fans in green leotards. You can't say someone should get off their high horse simple because they disagree with what you are saying on your high horse. What is that greek philosopher’s name??? Hipowhat??
-Did I say that Slozo will pay for this??????
-Alex, finally, how many times do I have to say 'penalty box" before people read it. There is a specific and defined difference in the expectation of fans around the penalty box and players box than any other place in the arena. Like it or not, it is there. No one has been able to prove other wise. No one is saying keep your mouth shut. Just don't talk smack or touch the glass at the penalty box.
Get it??
|
| The Duke |
Posted - 05/03/2011 : 16:58:46
Actually i enjoy team mascots Slozo. How you can compare team mascots to those annoying green men is beyond me, guess we all see things in a diffrent way.
The job of a team mascot is to rally the fans and create a pleasureable atmosphere in the stadium / rink etc...
How those green men do this is beyond me....all i see them do is slither around like morons with their leotards up their a$$ and other places unsightly for young children.....and stomach sickening for the eyes of the Heterosexual.  |
| Guest2714 |
Posted - 05/03/2011 : 16:24:08
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I never said anything of what you are implying. If anyone would like take the time to actual read exactly what I wrote rather than making 'utterly ridiculous' assumptions, you might just have something logical or tangible to bring to the conversation.
Did I say, anywhere in my post, that fans could not touch the glass anywhere in the stadium?? I said penalty box, very clearly I might add. That is nothing new or different in any arena. That started back when that fan fell into the box after the 'conversation' with Domi where that fan took a very justified beating.
The NHL does not allow fans to get too involved with anyone in the penalty box or benches. Maybe some people have never sat in those seats before. At least in Edmonton, if you are sitting in a seat near the penalty box or players benches, you are warned to keep any interactions with the players tasteful or your will forfeit your seat. I have to assume that is not uncommon through the entire NHL.
Serious people, read exactly what I wrote. Can people not realize that the NHL is simply defining the "line?" Don't touch the glass and don't talk to the players IN THE PENALTY BOX. (Maybe I didn't clarify it all the way through the post.) They never said anything about the signs or the antics or head stands ,scream, shout, or what ever else. Very simple and very reasonable. Don't touch the glass and don't talk to the players.
Finally, Slozo, if I want to wear and suit and tie to a hockey game, isn't that my prerogative? If I want to sit there arms cross and silent, that is again my prerogative. Does that make me any more or less of a fan that you or anyone else?? Maybe in your opinion. But last time I checked, your opinion is not the one that justifies the definition of a sports fan. I do not do what you assume I do, your tea time comments or what ever else. But if I did, what do you care??? You statement proves a very simple lesson I learned when I was a kid.
Opinions are like butt holes. Everyone has one, they all stink, yet people think their own smells like roses.
uptight leafs fan.. there's none of those in vancouver or in montreal! |
| Guest4803 |
Posted - 05/03/2011 : 15:05:52
Man are you oiler fans babies, wah wah wah wah wah ......oh and by the way it has caught on did you not see the 3 orange man in anaheim during their series with nashville? |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 05/03/2011 : 14:04:11
quote:
Originally posted by OILINONTARIO
Anyway, I am a Canuck hater, not only by nature, as an Oilers' fan, but because of a couple of d-bags I know who won't shut up about them (these are people I know personally, not anyone on PUH).
Naturally, this has led me to despise the obnoxious guys in the green leotards. What is this? Gamesmanship? Mascotry? A promotion of the game itself? Those who defend these two idiots in these ways confirm that Canucks' fans behave somewhat differently than the rest of us.
This doesn't happen anywhere else in the league (knock on wood), and I would be quite upset if this behaviour was ever allowed at Rexall, though I don't expect it ever would.
Having said that, let them do their crap until a legitimate complaint is registered. Let the fans of Vancouver be represented by these guys in every clip shown of them. Seems appropriate.
The Oil WILL make the playoffs in 2012.
I think the parts of your post that i bolded pretty much tell the story. You're an admitted Canucks hater and even said yourself that "..... this has led me to despise the obnoxious guys in the green leotards". Seems to me that this implies that it's because these green dudes (or "dorks" as Beans prefers to call them) are affilitated with a team you hate, you hate them? So, if they were fans of some other team you either like or don't hate, they'd be okay? Pretty much what you're saying.
Are these guys any worse than "the fat dancing guy" who pops up in various arenas? You know, the disgustingly obese dude in a tank top dancing in the aisles between whistles? Or how 'bout cheerleaders? Are they any better/worse? Mascots??? You get the idea i'm sure.....
As for Rexall, is there a reason you know of that this sort of thing couldn't happen? Aside from these dudes freezing their nuts off en route to the game maybe, i see no reason they wouldn't be allowed in any arena. Hopefully they don't ban them from the Nashville rink that they've flown to for tonights game!!!
To say that "Those who defend these two idiots in these ways confirm that Canucks' fans behave somewhat differently than the rest of us." is really shallow and unproven. Get off your high horse OIO, while i don't really care one way or the other about these green guys, your comments regarding Canucks fans and the way they're represented is really pretty pathetic.
|
| OILINONTARIO |
Posted - 05/03/2011 : 12:30:27
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
It's not unreasonable . . . to ask the fans . . . not to "touch" the glass? Not to talk to the guys in the penalty box? Are you for real?!?
That's TOTALLY unreasonable to assume that your perfect fan sits there, arms folded in lap, sipping his beer calmly while in his beauty seats near the front row. That is totally and utterly ridiculous, Beans.
EVERY rink has guys and gals right by the penalty box and benches that throw out comments, hold up signs, jeer, cheer, - you name it. It's part of being a hockey fan, and getting into the game to participate!
Do you wear a suit and tie to these hockey functions, Beans? When is tea time, between the second and third period? Do you hush people?
Crack a smile, dude! It's a couple of guys who love their team, and they dress up like crazy mascots and get the crowd revved up. What can possibly bug you about that?
It's not easy being green, you know!
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
I am confused.
Was this post meant to be sarcastic? Certainly doesn't seem that way to me.
Anyway, I am a Canuck hater, not only by nature, as an Oilers' fan, but because of a couple of d-bags I know who won't shut up about them (these are people I know personally, not anyone on PUH).
Naturally, this has led me to despise the obnoxious guys in the green leotards. What is this? Gamesmanship? Mascotry? A promotion of the game itself? Those who defend these two idiots in these ways confirm that Canucks' fans behave somewhat differently than the rest of us.
This doesn't happen anywhere else in the league (knock on wood), and I would be quite upset if this behaviour was ever allowed at Rexall, though I don't expect it ever would.
Having said that, let them do their crap until a legitimate complaint is registered. Let the fans of Vancouver be represented by these guys in every clip shown of them. Seems appropriate.
The Oil WILL make the playoffs in 2012. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 05/03/2011 : 12:22:52
Beans....i'm still lost on the fact that there's a rule "not to talk to the players"? If it's not profanity-laced, i see no reason you can't speak / yell at them?
Maybe we need more Marty Turco's? We all know he spoke to at least one fan! |
| Dastardly Bastard |
Posted - 05/03/2011 : 11:53:24
Fans have dressed up and heckled opposing players in most every sport since the inception of sport itself. The cry babying about the Green Men is nothing more than fans with a grudge and nothing substantial to whine about. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 05/03/2011 : 11:15:47
Agreed on all levels Slozo, however, are you not reading into this slightly?? The NHL's stipulations were simple. Don't talk to the players and don't touch the glass of the penalty box. I don't think anyone said the Greed Dorks crossed the line. But, as you are in security, I can only assume you often have to remind people where the line is so as they do not cross it and create a problem.
I don't think anyone said anything about holding up signs or pictures or anything else.
Don't touch the glass or talk to the players at the penalty box. No different than the rules at any other stadium for any other game. |
| n/a |
Posted - 05/03/2011 : 09:57:46
I think you mean the line can be blurry sometimes, and yeah - sometimes it can be.
Holding up a picture of your FAMOUS wife, with her in an opposing jersey, is not over the line in my opinion, and probably most others I am guessing. But the same thing with, say, a drawn axe stuck in her skull with blood coming out (on the picture) would definitely be over the line.
But really, I don't think the line is that blurry - heck, I am in the security business myself at this point, I have to deal with these blurry lines on a daily basis. And it is pretty simple, usually: that which endangers people or property, or that which is offensive to MOST PEOPLE, is wrong, and is almost always stopped.
I don't think the Green Men have come close to crossing this line . . . and Mike Fisher's wife has to expect that her celebrity (and good looks) will draw some attention because of her association with a key Predator. If she wasn't famous . . . the Green Guys wouldn't have done it, because no one would get the joke.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 05/03/2011 : 07:38:42
Slozo, I think you can appreciate that sarcasm is not always easy to spot in the written word. Considering the opposing views we often have on things, I did mis-read your sarcasm. I apologize if I offended you in anyway. Touché, as you did get me going.
I still think a little something is missing here. We are talking specifically about the penalty box area. Fans have never been able to bang on the glass there. Engaging in conversations with the players?? Sure, but they are watching that area (and the players bench) far closer and do not allow the fans to bang on the glass on the penalty box or players bench. At least, I don't recall seeing it happen in the past 10-15 years.
Slozo, the Domi thing is a stretch on what the Green Dorks do and I am not saying they are one and the same. I was contrasting the situations as to what the extreme looks like (Domi against drunk fan) however that line of going to far and being a jovial and humorous fan is one that is very thin.
The NHL is just highlighting that line to ensure there is not an extreme situation. Personally, I applaud them for their proactive approach. We all know the NHL rare does anything proactively.
|
| n/a |
Posted - 05/03/2011 : 05:06:08
Well, I guess you missed the humour in my tongue firmly in cheek diatribe against your (IMHO) prudish stance. No Beans, it's just fine if you wear a suit, and it's totally your right to drink tea between the second and third period if you wish. You even have the right to shush people, asking them to be quiet.
Just like any fan has a right to talk to the guy in the penalty box. Or slap on the glass if it's not overly violent. That fan has every right to do that, and they paid good money for that seat.
So the Green Men are silly and childlike? Coming from you Duke, that is a classic statement! Do you think mascots should be banned too? They would certainly fall under silly and childlike . . . and how about those between period things where they wear the fat suits and try to score goals against each other . . . that's silly and childlike too! Ban it all, right?*
Yeah . . . why would you want to get fans into the game? Why would you want to let fans express themselves? How terrible!*
Pasty - I agree that a line has to be drawn, and in general agree with your sentiment. But until the line IS crossed, why bother?
Beans - Domi was more than verbally attacked in the penalty box during that incident, he had water squirted on him, with a wild fan going nuts - shouting obscenities, exhibiting violent behaviour, and clearly drunk (well, it was in Philly). To try to make some sssssstttttttrrrreeeeeetttch by comparing the Green Men to this incident surpasses all previous stretches of argument you have attempted before.
Well done!*
*This is a comment that is to be taken "sarcastically", ie - the point stated is actually the opposite of what the writer actually wants or agrees with. It is used as a form of humour, often with exaggerations, to highlight a point of view.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
