MattPie

I've contacted Rambo. And not that football guy.

I didn't really see the one last night, I was cleaning up and listening. The other Ennis one, however, was way off. His skate was a foot off the ice and his other skate was 3 ft into the zone. Even live, I said to myself that it looked off-sides, and that's not something I usually notice. EDIT: and last night, didn't the review take all of 30 seconds? The first game of the season it took forever, but it seems like they're getting the kinks worked out.

OK, so if the player is 6" offsides, I shouldn't have put the dimension in there. Ennis has been offside by roughly 6" on both called-back goals.

Ha! Nicely done.

I don't think that solves the issue, really. Scenario: LW is 4 ft offsides when C enters the zone. C sees LW behind the D, passes it to him, and he skates in a scores. Legal in your proposal, but exactly what the review is supposed to catch. Update on my previous proposal: booth can call down an immediate Delayed Off-sides (either with a buzzer or in the linesman's ear, the mechanism is TBD). Attacking team must immediately leave the puck and tag up. If the attacking team touches the puck, it results in a normal or deliberate offsides on the judgement of the linesman.

For all the talk of "there should be a time limit" and Liger's post of 10 seconds, the play last night was only 6 seconds, so even by those standards it would have been reviewable. And the people that are complaining would still be complaining. I'm coming around to not liking the review, not because it's hosed the Sabres but because of the "sinking feeling" that people have mentioned that they're waiting for the other shoe to drop when a goal is scored. I brought this up somewhere (either this thread or another), what would people say to the "booth" being able to blow a play offsides? The trick there is if they're doing it before a goal is scored, essentially they've eliminated the linesman.

The Sabres were only in the zone for 6 seconds (apparently) before the goal was scored, so last night would have turned out the same way.

I think the sabres are outliers here. They have 40 GF right now, so three called back means 7.5%. I'm sure the team and their fans that gets hosed by that non-called offsides will be fine with maintaining your entertainment. I mean really, it's not like a guys skate was in the crease or anything. There's always next year, year? Maybe he should have taken the hit and gotten the call (ha ha).

The nation would hold course until someone decided that they might swing a few votes by attacking it, at which point their side of the media would relentlessly talk about it and how bad the other side is for supporting it. They want democracy, I'd bet, but in the absence of that being a reasonable path they'll take a dictator that roughly aligns with their values and stops people being killed in the market as a daily occurrence. It's not really surprising, you'll see arguments on Facebook where people will quickly want the American government to stop something they disagree with even if it flies in the face of what we'd call American values. And to be clear, it's certainly both "sides" that does it. That's been part of the reason our foreign policy in that area (and others) has gone so badly. The US government will prop up "bad guys" if they're friendly to the US and keep their population in line. Democratically elected governments in that area probably won't be pro-USA. I'd almost think the US would be best off firing up the arsenal of democracy. Provide all kinds of support from material to intelligence but try to keep back where possible. The population is suspect of anything coming from the USA.

I don't mind the blocker, that doesn't seem that out of place. What's with the sleeve above it being as wide as the blocker though?

It's way too early to call the sun a star. Putting that kind of pressure will just cause the sun to flame out.

Another thoughtful post, thanks. I'm not sure where xenophobia starts in terms of "can I just not like someone?" vs. "I hate all those brown people". I don't think it's unreasonable for people to be expected to at least somewhat assimilate into he culture they live in. That doesn't mean they have to become completely immersed into that culture though. In the long run, though, the children of the immigrants will become at least somewhat integrated. Their children will probably be almost indistinguishable from everyone else (in terms of social norms). Well, attacking them serves to radicalize not only people "over there", but also in other places. Including here. Jihadi John, for instance. It's the "circle of violence" that Israel is locked in, one side attacks the other, they strike back, side one gets mad at that and attacks again, and so on. Your plan essentially says, we're going to keep things the same (periodic attacks) forever. Now, that may be the only way this ends up, but if there are other avenues, shouldn't we be exploring them? You will probably argue that it's pointless to do anything other than attack because they won't stop. That may be true. Let's find out if there are other ways before settling in on that one. And it's not going to be a couple year process. A couple years is a blip on the 100s this has been going on.

Maybe you don't follow it, but the Saudis buy a ton of military hardware and support and other stuff from the US. There's certainly leverage to be had there. That being said, are the terrorists being spawned there also Wahhabist too? It's not like these societies are homogeneous and everyone is the same.

Are we sure about that? I thought I saw that they were getting pushed back.

I am too, but I do know there have been riots in France over the perceived treatment of Muslims. We kind of "know" the French look down on Americans, there's no reason to think that disdain wouldn't extend to immigrants in their own country. I assume Le Pen is similar to the people in the English Defence League, essentially, "immigrants are destroying the country". Xenophobia is alive and well around the globe.

The Syrians (and others in the area) along with ISIS would just say, "see, the Americans and their lapdogs killed your friends! They're the enemy!" And they'll believe it, just like people here believe Iraq had large-scale WMD in 2003.

I think you're on to something and have thought similarly in the past. Their level of destitution is so much higher than anything we see in the US; if you take someone looking at scratching out a living for the next 40-60 years hoping they don't end up dying in some bombing attack in the local market and you give them an option to control their own destiny it would be very attractive.

Oh, I read the line-up above that Pysyk was #7 and Gorges, McCabe, and Colaiacovo were on the left.

You win, I'm not going to go through 100s of posts to find what I believe read. As I don't have any evidence, I retract my post. Feel free to delete any and all posts on this subject from me.

I thought Pysyk played on the left a bunch last year in the AHL. With Risto playing well, McCabe playing OK, and if Pysyk can play left, the Sabres D isn't in *that* bad of shape.

Fine, I found the post in this thread. I wish I had the gumption to find the one from months ago in the Political thread. I'm calling a spade a spade. Here's a straight question do you believe the actions of jihadists in Paris and other places are indicative of Islam in general? Unrelated: I learned today that since the US has started attacking ISIS, they've launched over 6000 air strikes against ISIS targets. That's more than anyone other country by something like 4 times.

You're correct, I was just thinking of automating the info gathering so it would happen faster. I think a black puck being pushed with sticks with 14 people skating around is a more difficult thing to track than a bright green ball with almost nothing else in the field of play, and only momentarily being in contact with anything. The chip and sensor would seem easy to me in comparison. :)

#1, I think d4rk is referring to "5 eyes", which doesn't include France. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes) Intelligence gathering by necessity is played pretty close to the vest as the more you share, the better chance someone tips your collective hand. It's not hard to believe that France wasn't in the loop until this weekend. #2, if the US goes in and bombs those camps and a bunch of innocents die in the process it's bad news for everyone involved. If France does it now, there's a lot more leeway. The US probably would need to refine things and make sure they minimize casualties, France doesn't have as much restriction now. FWIW, until the last couple weeks (starting with the Russian Airliner) it seemed ISIS as far as a ground-war was contained. They changed tactics and perhaps our intelligence services should have seen that coming. I certainly don't what kind of intelligence they had beforehand, but it's not inconceivable that the US had a pretty good picture of what was on the ground in the Middle East but didn't have sources in France to see the plot unfolding. France may not allow the US to spy on its citizens, which at least some of the terrorists are.

Catching up... Is it worth discussing that the population of Japan and Germany (at least as a stereotype) loves order and hierarchy? I'm not sure the Marshall Plan would work even in the same starting conditions if in the ME. I'm not even sure the Marshall Plan would work in the USA given our pretty hard-core "you can't tell me what to do" streak. Not really, the parallel would be blaming all Americans for mass-shootings in the US (I'm presuming at least some of those guys identified as Christian, so you could go there too). Or blaming all South Carolinians for that kid that shot up the church, or blaming all of WNY for Timothy McVeigh. First line: it may not be explicitly in this thread, but nfreeman has come pretty close in the past. I don't have the post quoted, but upthread he said something like, "you know my stance on this" referring to it. If we change "concert" to "movie theatres and schools" does it make you pause? You've essentially done the equivalent of someone in (for example) Germany claiming all Americans are to blame and are blood-thirsty lunatics for the few people have shot up public places here. The Air Force is trying to because to funnel more money into the F-35. There is some push-back at the political level with Congress passing budgets that prohibit funding A-10 retirement. I'm not sure how that came to be, although it could be Air Force people that don't agree with the official stance whispering to their representatives. The Air Force doesn't like single-role systems, they'd much rather have flexible systems that do an OK job on a lot of roles rather than single-role systems that do a great job. There's logic there, but I'm not sure I entirely buy it. The Quran (in my very rudimentary reading) prohibits the taking of, at the very least, innocent Muslim lives (and is often interpreted as all innocent lives), so apparently not that literal. I think they're making the argument (if there's actually any logic in it) that if you're not ISIS, you're not innocent and therefore fair game. Whack jobs.