IlliniKrush

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 10, 2010 -> 05:46 PM) Funny, a few pages ago I asked rhetorically "was that kid watching now" not knowing "that kid" actually posts here... did you mean that literally, that you were the one kid he was talking about? I thought he was talking in generality, knowing he saw some kids crying as he exited, or imagined that was the case. Wanting to speak to an entire generation of young fans that stuck through. I was at the end that he left, but I wasn't right by the tunnel. So if he literally meant one kid, it likely wasn't me. But I took it as general, but no matter which one he meant, it just hit home. Really made me think back and close this whole thing up for me. It was just an emotional moment. Watching JR lose it like that...that was touching. Because to me it was just sheer honesty.

QUOTE (smalls2598 @ Jun 10, 2010 -> 03:06 PM) So I just got off the phone with a fellow employee who works out of the Philadelphia area. Years ago, I found out he's a big Sox fan, so ever since then, whenever we get the chance, we talk sports, and mostly it's the Sox. But the past week we've been talking about the Stanley Cup final (he's a Flyers fan). He said the local radio stations over there are giving Roenick crap for crying on tv last night. Stuff like "well, he played for both teams, what's his deal?" and "it's not like you were from Chicago". I found it pretty funny to hear things from the other perspective. Send your friend an email. This is pretty outstanding. http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune....ut-it-here.html

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jun 10, 2010 -> 02:21 PM) I did not. I actually had to work at Blockbuster and then the UC for the Hawks that day. I'm planning on getting down there around 10am if not a bit earlier, but I'm going directly to the rally site which doesn't start til 11:30, which you know will be delayed. Yeah, I guess I'd rather be at the rally site. Otherwise you might as well watch the parade go by and head out of there. There was what, 350,000 at the Sox rally? Not sure what to expect.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jun 10, 2010 -> 01:57 PM) I'll clearly be at the rally tomorrow. It should be a great time. Did you go to the Sox one? I did not as I was down at school, but I'm going tomorrow. What time do you need to be somewhere to be able to see anything? Any tips from any of you veteran parade goers? Looking forward to watching Kane rap, swear like a sailor, or something equally as ridiculous.

QUOTE (The Critic @ Jun 10, 2010 -> 09:47 AM) I love your post, Krush - I can relate to and agree with all of it, except for one small detail: I'm happy the Johnny-Come-Latelys got to enjoy this as well as the die-hards. It takes more than just the "core audience" to make something an event, and the 2009-2010 Blackhawks (especially come playoff time) were one of the biggest, most talked-about events in Chicago sports that I can remember. It seems like everywhere I went, people were talking Hawks, wearing the gear, singing that awful DOO DOODOODOO song. This felt as big as the Bears getting to the Super Bowl, as big as 2005. You don't get the kind of buzz the Hawks had/have without the "casual fan" getting on board. So I say THANK YOU to every Hawks fan, new, old, die-hard, bandwagon, newly-in-love or in-love-for now. This belongs to EVERYONE. Savor it, because this may never happen again. Sorry Critic, that wasn't meant as a "f*** off" to the bandwagoners. I just wanted to address the die-hards for a second who had experienced a lot of what I talked about, who it was really relevant too. As we know with the Sox...when you are this invested, it just means more deep down to you, at least in my opinion. I know a lot of people are happy, but for us...I mean, I don't know at what moment I will stop thinking about this. The magnitude is just crazy. It was cool to see a city get into something like this and to have a buzz instead of people constanly mocking me for following the Hawks. It's not my style to go watch games and party with all of them, but they can have their fun and enjoy it too however they would like. QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jun 10, 2010 -> 12:51 PM) I feel guiltily... I feel like I SHOULD buy some hawks gear, but at the same time I've never owned any and it makes me feel lie a bandwagon jumper. Go buy it, enjoy it. So many of you on here admitted that you aren't the biggest Hawks fans, would try to learn from everyone's posts, and seemed to show genuine interest in the game and ask questions when you were unsure of things. I've never had a problem with those types of fans. I only have a problem with the people who are completely posing as fans only because it's the in thing to do, and they want to look cool, and ruin other people's game/fan experience. To end it back on a higher note...anyone see the medal Burish was wearing that just said "winner" on it? That was fantastic.

What a moment last night. After all these years where you never think it will happen, it does. Watching all those terrible teams, terrible players, and terrible games. All the games at the Stadium growing up, the raucous crowds, the great rivalries. The anthem. The organ. Guys banging on the back windows. Buying Hawkvision and watching games with my Dad. Going to the bowling alley with him to watch some home games since they had the feed. Listening to games on the radio on school nights. Looking at people like they were idiots when they asked if the game was on TV and replying with "duh, it's a home game." Getting super excited in 02 to go to Games 3 and 4 against the Blues since playoff hockey had been gone for so long. Then watching us get beat in both, and back to being pretty much irrelevant. Last night I was wearing my authentic Mark Bell jersey. Oops. Every year I watch the NHL playoffs like it's my job, and then I get really excited to watch the Finals and see a Cup being presented. It's always something to see, I get chills just seeing other random teams (I'm looking towards you, Tampa) lifting it. What a feeling that must be. It's just such a cool moment to see the hardest trophy in sports to win awarded. It took a while for it to fully sink in. It's like it wasn't actually happening (aside from the whole bizarre ending). Guys with indian heads on their jerseys lifting the Cup? Seriously what the hell is going on? Then Roenick gets on, says what he says and I absolutely lost it. I was that kid crying at the Stadium in 1992 as he raised his arm and saluted the crowd before heading down the stairs, before I watched Mario skate around with the Cup. That guy did everything he could while in a Blackhawks jersey to bring us a Cup. All you could hope was that someday, that'd be us. That really made it come full circle. And you know what JR, I do have a big smile on my face. To all the die-hard fans out there...our time has arrived. We deserved this, and we got it. In the words of Patrick Kane, "I can't believe this just happened, holy crap"

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 8, 2010 -> 03:06 PM) How has no one posted todays Trib poster yet? http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/hocke...0,6571141.photo That's pretty stupid for a newspaper like the Chicago Tribune to do.

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Jun 7, 2010 -> 10:53 AM) I couldn't believe this wasn't discussed by the announcers, let alone called by the officials. Harntell was across the goal line and partly inside the net, clearly blocking Niemi's lateral movement, and the shot was to that side. I know its a non-reviewable judgment call, but it seemed pretty obvious to me, and I though it at least warranted some analysis and an explanation. You're right on the last part, you would think they would have caught that and commented on it. It certainly was a judgment call, so you might as well touch on it. Here's how it was ruled, as I see it. Hartnell dove for the loose puck and ended up in the crease. He was there when the puck went in. However, he did not impair Niemi's ability to stop the shot. By rule then, it's a good goal. If you slow it down, Niemi's down and out on the other side of the net (due to his own movements), and the puck is roofed before Niemi even has a chance to move more than just a little bit. Niemi's movement was not hindered by Hartnell, nor did him being in the crease prevent him from making the save. Nor was he making it if Hartnell wasn't there at all. When it comes to goal/no goal situations in the crease, there's as much judgment as there is anywhere else in the entire game, because so many different things can play into it. It's not easy to call and leads to discussions often, but it's better than a hard and fast rule....it's no longer the infamous a toe in the crease opposite the play and goaltender and it was disallowed. One of the more ridiculous rules this sport had for a while. Now it's left up to judgment, like it should be. Honestly I think the right call was made - and you didn't see anyone on the Hawks saying anything, unless I missed it. It should be a good goal, and one the Hawks would certainly want on the other end in the same situation. But yes it looks awkward when a guy is in the crease up against the post, so you have to wonder if that was legit. "Edzo" could have explained that pretty quickly while watching the replay, but somehow chose not to do so.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 7, 2010 -> 08:49 AM) Out of all the series, this is the wrong one for you to be on your the refs can do no wrong kick. They have been horrible for the most part. Hence I responded to a post about last night's game and addressed a particular incident, not the series. Thanks though.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jun 6, 2010 -> 10:59 PM) Seriously, when is the NHL going to speak to the refs about how terrible they have been this series, especially to the Hawks. Pronger has TWO penalties the entire series? NIce high stick no-call directly in front of the ref, while the linesman was telling him he saw it. No biggie. Linesmen can only call majors. They can't tell him they saw a stick hit a guy and then create a call from there. McCreary was in the far corner and missed it, not the first time a high stick has been missed... How quickly you forget about the high stick where Duncan Keith absolutely opened up Briere and that went uncalled as well. Should have been 4 minutes and Philly would have had a 5 on 3 for a minute followed by another 3 minute power play... Out of all the games, THIS is the one you complain after? 2 of Philly's penalties were pretty weak as well.

QUOTE (Flash Tizzle @ Jun 3, 2010 -> 01:52 PM) It's only a problem for current umpires and those attempting to become umpires. Which, judging from past posts of yours, that is exactly what you are. QUOTE (Flash Tizzle @ Jun 3, 2010 -> 02:01 PM) My idea is there should be a system where invisible lasers are set up around home plate (above the plane of the plate, and at a side area that would allow someone to adjust the points depending on the height of the hitter), and the umpire would wear special glasses that allow him to see the colors. I'm basically envisioning a box, unlike that you would see on a K-Zone replay, that an umpire could easily distinguish when it crosses the plate as a strike. Granted, any idea that removes the power of umpires to call balls and strikes is controversial, but I figure such a concept aides umpires -- opposed to removing them entirely -- and would allow many to hold onto their jobs. No it's a problem because it's a ridiculous notion. I'm OK with expanded replay but balls and strikes electronically with some goofy system? We might as well play a video game. Balls and strikes aren't even the calls that people are upset with, or that need review, so not sure why anyone's going there. Umpires regularly score extremely high on the Questec scores, and get so many close calls right, but those never get talked about. All you're really trying to do here is get a safe guard in place so that when it's an important playoff game with a huge call, it might not cost a team a game. Which is perfectly fine. It won't happen so I'm not worried. They'll have their jobs regardless, as you need human beings on the field.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Jun 3, 2010 -> 01:46 AM) You sure about that? I remember seeing him back into on his own goalie, then deflects the puck with his skate making Niemi make a better save than a shot off a stick could have, which the puck deflects out to be buried into the net. It was Sharp's fault.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 3, 2010 -> 11:19 AM) Besides the umpiring that is... Okay? QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jun 3, 2010 -> 12:05 PM) Im all for a computer ump. Have a green light and a red light behind the plate, one for balls and one for strikes. The actual calls in the IF would be tougher to figure out, but the human error part is starting to get ridiculous in some of these sports. See this is the problem with opening up the door.

If MLB wants to go to replay, last year's postseason should have much more of an impact than this game. This shouldn't be what it takes to put it over the edge, really.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Jun 2, 2010 -> 11:59 PM) So the system now shouldn't be tweaked? There is no perfect system, but replay could easily be expanded significantly. Well that's clearly not what I said. I was simply commenting on what you said. Sure it could be expanded, but not for everything, and that's a big key. MLB can't just say "there's replay now" tomorrow and run with it. It's a lot more complicated than that.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Jun 2, 2010 -> 11:50 PM) I don't think you can suspend or fine an umpire for a human error. Stuff like that should be saved for Joe West, who had some sort of agenda and was calling balks that clearly weren't balks (they weren't even close) and throwing people out of the game for no reason. Joyce just made a mistake, a really bad mistake, but a mistake nontheless. And MLB can't just overturn the missed call, how do you think the 1985 Cardinals and teams like that would feel? It'd be unfair to them. They are stuck with this mistake and that is that. I actually feel REALLY bad for Jim Joyce. The technology is there so that he shouldn't have to be the villian. If it were being used like it SHOULD (there should be replay on everything except ball/strike calls, and it's common sense), then he wouldn't have to live the rest of his life knowing he took a perfect game away. I know the umpires job is to get it right, but they are human. The technology is there so that this should never happen, and it's on Bud Selig and MLB that it's not being used. This is their fault more than it is Jim Joyce's, and I hope this is fixed VERY soon. You can't do this, though. You can't change fair/foul calls that have already been ruled foul. Same thing for catch/no catch. You wouldn't be able to reverse it with runners on, as you're putting the offense or the defense at an advantage there. If a foul ball kills the play after 2 seconds and everyone stops, do the umpires just make up where all the base runners would have advanced to (with no chance to throw them out at a base)? Do you put the ball back in the corner and re-do the play? Can't really do that. You would be playing too much imaginary baseball and there'd be more arguments. There's enough as it is when it comes to fan interference, obstruction, etc. where umpires have to place base runners. On certain plays, it's just not possible. Kind of like you can't have a HR ruled on the field and then overturn it and say it actually hit the wall and is a live ball.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jun 2, 2010 -> 07:59 PM) Agreed, that's a fireable offense. I feel sick about it, and I didn't even want him to get one. QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jun 2, 2010 -> 10:29 PM) If that umpire is not fired, then I'm done with baseball. Wow at some of the ridiculous overreactions in this thread.

QUOTE (Jenks Heat @ May 28, 2010 -> 09:26 AM) The Sharks top two lines were coming in on a much higher level than the Flyers in my opinion. I still do not think the Flyers have played nearly the competition that the Haks have in the playoffs and while the Flyers have been on the brink of elimination I think the HAwks are more playoff tested at this point. The fact that the Toews line can play against the Flyers number three line is huge. The SJ top line is more talented than the Philly top line by a little bit, but 3 lines deep, I'll take Philly's forwards. They have some dynamic players over there, and a lot of the 2nd/3rd line guys played up on the first line and held their own with Gagne and Carter out for stretches. Philly's forward depth is excellent.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 28, 2010 -> 09:13 AM) There is step one of the problem. If Joe West knows the rules to his own game, Buehrle is still in the game. Its either that or he really does have an agenda. Either way, he needs to not be an umpire, because he isn't qualified. Look, we all know Joe West can be a prick. His hand gesture and what he supposedly said is what to take issue with more so than the call (even though it was clearly questionable). But don't question whether or not he knows the rules, because he clearly does. If he didn't and wasn't qualified, he wouldn't be in the game for this long. Maybe he had an agenda, maybe he "got balked' himself, maybe he legitimately thought he had a balk - we don't know, we can speculate. Even Ozzie said he's one of the best umpires in the game. Ozzie wasn't even arguing the balk call, he was upset with the actions between him and Mark, then him and Ozzie.

QUOTE (qwerty @ May 27, 2010 -> 10:01 PM) No apples and oranges being compared here. Rule 9.01 (d) http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/downloads/y2008/off..._the_umpire.pdf The example i gave with lilly sure as hell fits the description of unsportsmanlike conduct, regardless if the umpire was the reason the glove was thrown or not. It is apples to oranges. In both cases they weren't tossed for obvious reasons. Could they have? If the umpire really wanted to, I guess so. But it wasn't in relation to them, so they didn't really care. One's automatic, you have to look at the context or you could have ejections everywhere (think everytime AJ throws his bat down). QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 28, 2010 -> 07:53 AM) The whole premise here is stupid. We are steps down the chain by the time he tosses his glove. If West actually knew what a balk actually was, he never calls Buehrle for a balk, and Buehrle never gets a chance to get tossed. Its either that or he has some sort of irrational problem with Buehle, Ozzie, the White Sox, or whatever. Either way, he is being unqualified to do what he is doing. Picking out just Buehrle's actions here is completely missing the big picture. Makes no difference what happened before it. Like I said, his actions got him tossed, balk or not. In Joe West's opinion, it was a balk. Buehrle reacted poorly and that's the reason he got tossed. To put it simpler if you want, two wrongs don't make a right. Just because he doesn't like the call doesn't mean he can throw his glove. He doesn't do that, he's still in the game. Easy call.

QUOTE (qwerty @ May 27, 2010 -> 09:38 PM) It's not a 100% guarantee, playoffs or regular season. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/playoffs2007...&id=3049925 I will agree with you that the ejection was the right call though, regardless if it was a balk or not. Qwerty, that wasn't showing displeasure with an umpire. That was pissed at himself. You're comparing apples and oranges here. Nyjer Morgan threw his glove the other day during play and let up an inside the park home run. Not a comparison because the umps could care less about those.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ May 27, 2010 -> 09:28 PM) Football is played in the snow, rain, sleet, hail, etc. So the superbowl should be played in the same way. I also think everyone is making a huge deal out of this because the NFL will be going to 18 games in the next couple years and at that point the superbowl won't be until the very end of February and at that point there is a much much more minute chance of getting hammered with some huge snow-storm anyway. But I don't think it is fair for a superbowl only to be in a couple select areas. In fact, I find it stupid. I want the superbowl to be able to be played at any of the major stadiums and I still think it should be played at the superbowl team with the best records stadium. That will never happen though because of the logistics. It's not like every NFL game is played in that crap. If they were, it wouldn't be very popular and the games would get old quickly. So if only a handful of games are played in it, why should they aim for that? It doesn't make for a better game. I want the best game possible. That's my opinion. There's a reason they've had super bowls in warm weather/domes for all these years, obviously. This NY thing is a money grab more than it is about weather, no doubt. The game itself is now just one any old event of the whole week, unfortunately. I wish the game was more about the game and less about stuff surrounding it.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 27, 2010 -> 09:17 PM) But itd be like arguing that the World Series shouldnt be played in Chicago because it might be cold, so they should play all the games indoors in pristine conditions. No. Bad analogy. Cold is one thing, snow/rain is another. What I wouldn't want is baseball played after it's rained for 10 hours, so it's just a mud pit. That's an equalizer and the game would suck. No one would be able to play to their capabilities. That's why they don't play baseball in the rain or snow. They do play it in the cold. It's also why Roger Bossard makes tons of money to make the field in the best condition possible - because it allows athletes to perform at their best, the ball bounces/rolls true, and the risk of injury is minimized. It's not just so the field looks pretty.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 27, 2010 -> 09:18 PM) Caller Meathead you're on the Score. UMMM HI MAI NAME IS BADGER? UM. BEARS. I think the Bears should run the ball more. They get off the bus running. Also, why does Jay Cutler wear a turtleneck when it's -27? Dan Hampton never wore a turtleneck when it was -27. Bears. Ditka. -badger Literally laughing out loud. Wow, that was epic. PS you forgot to mention something about Orton. Otherwise you nailed it.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ May 27, 2010 -> 09:08 PM) Bear weather. Look at the Bucs, even when they had decent teams they were godawful in low weather games. Why, because they couldn't really play or handle the elements. The greatest show on Turf was able to be so good because they played in a dome. They wouldn't have been that if they played somewhere else. Just like Martz is going to have to adjust his offense because he isn't playing in a dome for half of his games. The Bucs don't play well when it's 0 degrees because they aren't used to it. It's not because their team isn't made for the cold, or that the Bears are. It just happens to be what they played in more often. The greatest show on Turf would work anywhere there's a decent field, even if it wasn't a dome. If Martz were to adjust his offense (though he won't much at all, really) he would do so because he doesn't have the skill set anymore, nor a decent field to work with. The precise cuts and pivots that the WR's need to make are going to be slow or end up in falls because of the crappy field conditions. It's a joke how bad Soldier Field is. That's not part of the game. If it is then they should just go play the game on the beach. It has about the same footing as they do now.