Stamkos fined for hit on Rielly

[frog]

Stamkos was being weird, not sure if anyone noticed but watch when kucherov got that tripping penalty against reilly in the corner earlier in the game. Reilly fell awkwardly and stamkos while clearly facing him skated directly into him while he was lying on the ground. After he semi-collided with him he put his hand up as if he didnt see him there even though he was in his direct point of view and casually drifted right into him while looking at him.

It was a minor nothing play and obviously didnt hurt reilly... just bringing it up because it just looked weird at the time that stamkos would skate into a player while he was lying on the ice... Maybe somehow he didnt see him in front of him?

 

[ACC1224]

Well it was looking like you were going to keep going on about it until someone finally said something - Just trying to help.

That's the point of asking a question, you hope someone can provide an answer.

 

[IBeL34f]

That's the point of asking a question, you hope someone can provide an answer.

Sure. I was just trying to figure out why you chose to ask that specific question - It had implications that didn't make any sense to me.

You said that those implications weren't your intention, so I was just trying to let you know where you could've gone about it differently.

 

[TorontoTrades]

There goes 0.05% of his paycheck this season.

That'll show him!

 

[ACC1224]

Sure. I was just trying to figure out why you chose to ask that specific question - It had implications that didn't make any sense to me.

You said that those implications weren't your intention, so I was just trying to let you know where you could've gone about it differently.

Not everything is sinister. Sometimes a question can just be asked out of curiosity.

 

[nsleaf]

Not everything is sinister. Sometimes a question can just be asked out of curiosity.

It was a fair and simple question, that implied nothing IMO, but at least now you have a posting advisor.

 

[IBeL34f]

It was a fair and simple question, that implied nothing IMO, but at least now you have a posting advisor.

"What did Rielly do?"
"He must have done something"
"I'm still waiting to hear what Rielly did"

How do these not imply that Rielly provoked Stamkos in some way?

I have no interest in being anyone's posting advisor, but wording is important, and phrasing things a certain way is going to come with certain implications. If someone is simply curious about whether or not something happened that they missed, it would make much more sense to ask if any such incident occurred, rather than to assume one did without any supporting evidence.

Obviously I'm coming off as some grammar nazi or something now, when really I just didn't get why someone automatically, continually assumed one of our players did something to warrant this play.

 

[nsleaf]

"What did Rielly do?"
"He must have done something"
"I'm still waiting to hear what Rielly did"

How do these not imply that Rielly provoked Stamkos in some way?

I have no interest in being anyone's posting advisor, but wording is important, and phrasing things a certain way is going to come with certain implications. If someone is simply curious about whether or not something happened that they missed, it would make much more sense to ask if any such incident occurred, rather than to assume one did without any supporting evidence.

Obviously I'm coming off as some grammar nazi or something now, when really I just didn't get why someone automatically, continually assumed one of our players did something to warrant this play.

Don't be too hard on yourself, not everyone gets it.

 

[Daisy Jane]

"What did Rielly do?"
"He must have done something"
"I'm still waiting to hear what Rielly did"

How do these not imply that Rielly provoked Stamkos in some way?

I have no interest in being anyone's posting advisor, but wording is important, and phrasing things a certain way is going to come with certain implications. If someone is simply curious about whether or not something happened that they missed, it would make much more sense to ask if any such incident occurred, rather than to assume one did without any supporting evidence.

Obviously I'm coming off as some grammar nazi or something now, when really I just didn't get why someone automatically, continually assumed one of our players did something to warrant this play.

i understand what you meant.

 

[Liminality]

Let's be real, it was a slew foot. Dirty play.

 

[White Shadow]

Let's be real, it was a slew foot. Dirty play.

That is a slew foot.

 

[mcleex]

I also noticed the slew foot. That play was very concerning and out of character

 

[DcW]

Very dangerous. Luckily Morgan is ok. I would say $5k is light after watching it again

 

[meefer]

Let's be real, it was a slew foot. Dirty play.

Thanks for posting.

 

[PromisedLand]

Stamkos is a sore loser I hope he and his team exits in a first round in THE MOST humiliating fashion ever

 

[HamiltonNHL]

If that trip occurs 18 inches further away from the boards, Rielly's neck snaps in half as his head hits the boards and his neck hits the ice.
Career ending or worse.

Hockey truly has dangers. Many are not preventable.

 

[diceman934]

Well pay back is a lot more fun and Rielly will finish him hard every chance he gets...

 

[pulfordfan]

Never thought stammer would use a slew foot, ovie might though. Very dangerous, really no chance to protect yourself when going down.

 

[LeafsNation75]

Let's be real, it was a slew foot. Dirty play.

Watching the game when it happened I didn't think anything of it, plus neither did Chris Cuthbert or Ray Ferraro mention it being dirty. However when I see the replay from that angle I can see why the league made this decision.