Stoner

It's funny. I recall saying to myself, this is a good cup of coffee. But I'm pretty sure it was because this was the first cup back with my regular brand and not the, ya know, baby spider infusion. At least I think the spider was preggers. Second shift is the ***** (shift). After work a snack and right to sleep, get up on regular hours and have all of your morning and early afternoon to yourself. No staying up til 4 or anything like that for this buckaroo.

There needs to be a full scale investigation into how it happened. It cannot happen again. 1. Was it in/buried in the sugar? Seems unlikely. 2. Had it crawled into the Coffeemate bottle and pre-deceased? 3. Did it crawl/fall into the cup after I poured it? 4. Was it ALREADY in the cup? (I took the cup out of the sink; it was upside down; I dried it out but probably just the rim and the outside.) 5. Was it in the carafe somewhere?

Sorry. I am definitely not googling "what does it mean find spider in bottom coffee cup".

PA will tap on his iron lung twice to have his male nurse post the flashing red light.

The thread title reads like a threat. We're all missing the biggest reason to not hire Rikard. We'd have to learn how to put the accent mark over the "o."

Science fiction is baloney.

Probably because it's all a bunch of baloney.

chz is awesome. Also:

No hockey emperor. No monopoly on hockey IQ. Almost direct quotes from Terry. He told us he wants/needs to be "in on the action." And you immediately post a vile, repugnant Swedish stereotype of Swedish chefs. How's 2021 working out for you now? Every little breeze seems to whisper Louise. Uh, oh, did I trigger Louise? Is she being stalked?

I don't eat in restaurants.

So which Gronberg do we get? The bearded badass in the pics or the young John Candy?

Are we down to final summary of positions? I could talk and debate No Goal forever. I find the technical side and the human side fascinating. I'd rather be me, and think about it from different angles, and even change my mind, than to be unchanging Taro — especially when he thinks he possesses The Truth when he doesn't and anyone who disagrees has an agenda, is trolling or is deranged. Anyway: 1. I don't remember ever being outraged or even miffed at the call at the time. It was a hockey goal. Common sense kicks in. To this day, Sabres fans don't talk as much about the goal being illegal as much as they allege that the goal wasn't reviewed and the memo was fabricated. I always figured it was better to let Dallas have a big asterisk next to their Cup than to have that happen to the Sabres. (And it would have.) Besides, we'd only have to wait seven years to have our own Cup. It did feel like we'd have more shots at glory with Dom in goal. 2. When good old SabreSpace came along, by then, I was able to argue that the right call had been made, because I thought Hull controlled the puck before entering the crease. That opinion changed on or about the 10th anniversary of the goal when two of the memo clarifications were published. The memo talked about a player having to MAINTAIN control before entering the crease (stickhandling, for example). Hull's momentary action couldn't be considered maintaining control. (Taro can relax; my only point about the definition of control not mattering was that the idea of control was disqualified before you even got to the definition of it, because control was not maintained under any definition.) 3. So the idea of how it all went down, and why, became the source of debate, as T2 and I were in agreement on the rule. I really shouldn't say he has been unchanging in his position. There have been many variations of the how and why, from the more innocent "expediency" of late to serious undertones of conspiracy. The idea of the Cup being "awarded" has always gotten my goat. It's just not fair to the Stars. And I don't think it's what happened. Lewis thought he had the right call. There was no decision to "just give it to 'em!" It was a bad call. 4. Or... Lewis made the right call for a terrible situation, clothed in his immense Lincolnesque powers as director of officiating. I'd like our legal eagles to chime in on whether Lewis would have been justified to take the spirit of the clarification memo and liberally apply it to a new and unanticipated situation (the "Oh, crap, that should have been included" theory). 5. Lewis as a toady who continues to lie to this day and the league as corrupt cover-uppers also doesn't sit well with me. I don't want to believe it about Lewis, and I can't believe it about the league, because if it's true I really can't be fan. I swim lavishly and blithely in the river denial. The weakest part of Taro's theory (and it's theory, not fact) is that the coverup included changing the definition of control (how that would cover anything up is beyond me) and getting rid of the crease rule (it was already pre-funct before No Goal). Things like someone opening up a Zamboni door at the request of the league, waiting 20 minutes to talk to the Sabres, Bettman turning away from Lindy and Peca, don't amount to a hill of beans. (And, probably most importantly, he doesn't know what the procedures were for reviewing a goal that touched on those clarifications. Was it the DOI's call? To say the video judge should have merely told the ref the skate was in the crease ahead of the puck doesn't make sense. Was the video judge to talk to the ref about the clarification while the author of the clarification picked his nose? I have no idea. I do know you can't look it up in any rulebook, because the memo came out in March.) 6. I don't think I have a 6. Taro, my brother in Sabrehood, all I wish is that someday something happens to wipe this debate out of our brains for good. You had your final say and I had mine. I don't think any more, at the moment, would be good for our respective mental healths.

Don't you find that curious? It's beyond frustrating that Vogl got Lewis to talk about no goal and didn't ask the right question. But that's Buffalo-level sports "journalism" for ya. We leave ever Sabres presser wishing the reporters had been smart. By the way, one can email Lewis through his town council website. I am certain any question about No Goal would be sent to the same circular file that my request for the clarification memo from the NHL ended up in. It might be worth a shot. He seems willing to discuss it.

Everybody knows you use the next to last setting on the microscope dial. Duh.

I'm not interested in the same old same old (I've heard Taro's account dozens of times; it's the wrinkles that are interesting, but unfortunately he won't commit to them when they are read back to him). I'm kind of interested in how an old man still working in officiating still thinks he got the call right. I see something to really ponder; I'm sure Taro sees the same NHL hack he saw 22 years ago instead of a decent and honorable official. But, seriously, doesn't it make you wonder? I'll say this as an oddball explanation. I only read two of the clarifications as presented by Budd Bailey in his blog (9 and 10). Budd did not cover himself in glory with his understanding of the situation. What if a missing clarification fit the bill? What if Budd got the text of the memo from someone inside the Sabres who changed the wording? Bryan Lewis is taking possession or possession and control to his grave.

But the slot for the one player goes through the barrier. You could go in the box and "fight" the penalized player! The other funny thing about the pics is that the seller put all of the players for one team on one side of the "ice."

I have this nagging feeling that when the trainer tried to put Jack into a wheelchair for life, he was done, over it, finished, "I can't even."

Which will come after the Sabres win two games in a shootout to get to 6-5-2.

The person Taro needs to debate is Bryan Lewis. As of 2019, when he was interviewed by Vogl, he was still working in officiating. You'd think the monstrous thing he did in 1999 would have led to his being blackballed. Anyway, he doesn't agree with Taro that he got the call wrong, let alone all the conspiratorial nonsense. --- https://theathletic.com/1017120/2019/06/07/this-is-a-tripping-penalty-missed-ex-official-bryan-lewis-on-another-call-that-puts-the-refs-under-scrutiny/ The Athletic called on Lewis to explain what might have happened during Game 5 in Boston and to see if anything had changed since Game 6 of the 1999 final, when Hull scored with his foot in the crease to lift Dallas to the Cup and sink Buffalo into a “No Goal” dismay that lingers to this day. Here’s the conversation: Now, I know you weren’t on the ice for the Brett Hull goal back in Buffalo, but it’s been 20 years and it still pops up whenever something like this happens. Is there … No, you made it pop up. I didn’t. You did. (Laughs.) True. And you know what? At the end of the day here, we’re talking about something here where one is a mechanic and one is a judgment call. The mechanic of that one — and I don’t know what I did two days ago, never mind 20 years ago — but we’ve had situations that happened, even during that season, that were identical in nature and ruled in the same manner. I appreciate the fact that people don’t like it, or they feel they were cheated, whatever the language would be. There has to be some comfort in the fact that as you walk through the rulebook — and in that particular case then, I walked through the rulebook that night. I never left the arena until Gary Meagher, our PR guy, said, “OK, it’s good to go.” A rebound off the goalpost, a rebound off the goalie doesn’t change possession, and there you look at it, all right, it’s a tough mechanic. And I read from the rulebook that night — I remember doing that, reading from the rulebook. You don’t know it, you don’t like it, everybody feels you’ve been wronged or whatever have you, you have to work out and say, “Well, it was right. If that happened again, I would do it the same way again.” Where you look at a situation here, we’re talking about judgment, and as a result of looking at something, you might say, “You know what? Maybe I wouldn’t do it that way the next time.” So for me, it’s not really fair to draw a comparison. One is a mechanic based on the rulebook that’s clearly described, and the other one is judgment aspect. That makes sense. So, as you mentioned, looking at the mechanic issue of it for the Hull one, there is nothing really to change from 20 years ago? Or nothing you would alter? No. And you know what? First of all, it was a very tough rule to deal with anyway with your foot in the crease. And I’m going through that in another league. I’m a referee chief of university hockey in Ontario, and we’re going through that because that’s a common rule that shows up in the playoffs. Everybody is trying to get the goalie off his game, all right? And when I’m at a game now, I actually chart how many guys are active in and around the crease. I’ve learned over the years that’s a style of play by some teams. That’s one of the rules that we are looking at this year at the university level is should we tighten this up? To use international hockey as an example, if you go and you stand in the crease for any reason, they stop the play and take the faceoff outside. That’s a significant rule option, but it’s there, with the message being to the attacking players: “Stay the heck out of the crease and let the goalie do his job.” Which was always the intent. I don’t want to say it was a good rule or a bad rule because my job was to make sure they got written in the rulebook and we told the officials what to do with it. … If I had a chance to take the tape and walk you through the rebound, the bounce off the goalpost or the bounce off the goalie and then show you the rulebook, I would like to think you would understand it better. I actually said to a guy today — we were talking about a conservation situation for a guy who wants to add an addition onto his house. I’m a politician up here in town, as well, and I said, “Here’s the rules, and here’s the regulations. These are what they are, but you don’t have to like them.” And that would be the same thing in Buffalo. Here’s what it is. It’s tough to explain. You don’t have to like it.

Two minutes for ramming, jamming or slamming I'm guessing.

Where in the world is Taro T?

So a poorly worded joke. I await the apologies.

Tip that hat back and enjoy. I feel bad for Dodo.

And I never said Lewis reviewed the goal in under 10 seconds. You're making stuff up. I said he made the call quickly. You're all hung up on the doors opening. People also entered the ice through the Stars' bench by the way. Lewis reffed 1,000 games in the NHL including eight finals. In an era without review. He watched Hull's goal live, he wrote the memo. In his mind it wasn't a tough call. There was plenty of time to watch a replay. Not every review had to take five minutes.