flyingkiwi
Registered User
maurice might have a legit case since the ref was Francois St Laurent and we all know his work
Question, does St Laurent ref us better now without Maurice?
maurice might have a legit case since the ref was Francois St Laurent and we all know his work
maurice might have a legit case since the ref was Francois St Laurent and we all know his work
This is just another excuse from Maurice if he is referring to St. Laurent. The Little/Stralman hit happened on Feb 25 2016, and I know the optics were bad. Every Jets fan wanted to strangle St.Laurent, but I feel he only laughed at the face-off because Buff was probably cracking wise to St.Laurent about how mad Maurice was at him.
The Jets record when St.Laurent reffed their game:
15/16 - 1-3 * season the hit happened.
16-17 - 3-2
17/18 - 5-0
18/19 - 4-0
19-20 - 3-2
20-21 - 4-0
21-22 - 2-2
If anything, folks should be questioning St.Laurent's bias towards the Jets.
What this doesn't show is if St.Laurent called more penalties against the Jets in any given game and the Jets just overcame the odds to win anyway, but one can't complain about the results.
Images copied from Scouting The Refs
The 19/20 is shown as 2 different records on 2 different images. The first one is from half way through the season, the 2nd is for the whole season. So, in 19/20 the Jets had a record of 3-2 for the season when St. Laurent reffed our game.
Geez, I hope I got all these numbers right.
His actual profession is about presenting whatever management deems best to appeal to advertisers and fans. His refusal to participate was bad for the business. The professional thing to do would have been to put his personal beliefs aside and do what management decided was best for the organization.
I say this as a conservatively minded individual who hates these "virtue signaling" events.
I disagree that someone should put aside their personal beliefs to satisfy a virtue signalling event. Is that what the LQBTQ+ community wants? Window dressing from people participating due to pressure from advertisers?
Provorov did the appropriate thing. He simply did not participate and didn’t make a stink about it.
If my employers told me I had to march in a Gay Pride event and wear a rainbow t-shirt, I wouldn’t. It doesn’t make me a homophobe.
What's worse is the way that the team and league have handled it.Judging by the context on twitter, it seems Ivan Provorov decided not to participate in the pregame skate with the team issued LGBT jersey because it goes against his beliefs. There goes any interest I had in the player whatsoever.
I wonder if we could use Heinola as a centerpiece around a Chychrun deal?Well, though Provorov is entitled to his thoughts and beliefs, they don’t align to that of the Jets. Which means I can’t see the Jets pursuing him at all now.
So I’ll turn my attention to wanting the Jets to add Chychrun. Likely a better option and player anyway.
If I believed for one f***ing second it had anything to do with Provorov's religion I'd give you that. Russians have a long history of homophobia. Does Provorov drink, gamble, had extramarital sex?Punishing someone for their religious beliefs ... wow you guys are tough.
I see Provorov played the most minutes tonight ... good on Torts.
imo I would rather have a leader than a follower.
Obivously I have skin in the game with this whole Provorov thing but as a gay male growing up I did not participate in high level hockey as a kid because that wasn't something gays did. I was subjected to homophobia time and time again playing (not directed at me because I would kick the shit out of someone) but nonetheless on the ice and in my own dressing room.
It's a f***ing shame because I think I could have been a good hockey player if I was accepted.
This is about kids feeling like they can play hockey and be an NHLer.
Exactly - I don't want to get political but there is a group that pushes the 'woke is bad' agenda - and trust me, I get really tired of ultra radical talk be it left or right.I think posts like this highlight the fact that things like rainbow warm up jerseys and showing LGBTQ+ acceptance are not political stances no matter how much people try to spin it as some "political statement" or some pick and choose religious reasons.
Making groups of people feel excluded because of who they are isn't just a political disagreement.
Their GM looked like a genius for a hot minute. Now he looks to have scuttled the franchise. That 1st rounder to Montreal - unprotected - for Ben Chairot is brutal.Pro Bullshitter Paul Maurice.
Who saw Florida sucking this year? I did
To be fair, Paul isn't the only reason. Their D and goaltending mixed with Paul tho....
Their GM certainly didn't help him tho
What's worse is the way that the team and league have handled it.
Just goes to show that the NHL could care less about diversity. Example after example of how actions speak louder than words.
Making groups of people feel excluded because of who they are isn't just a political disagreement.
Unless that group is Christians, right?
If that's because Christians believe being gay is a sin and makes people lesser than, sure. I'm also quite sure that "Christian discrimination" can't hold a candle to LGBT discrimination anyway.
You really don't get it. I'm assuming you are in a group that is accepted as normal or desired in society.What does diversity even mean? Clearly diversity doesn't mean toleration of beliefs that differ from your own. How is that diversity? That's just enforced ideological conformity not diversity.
All the player did was quietly decine to show support for something he doesn't believe in. He didn't go on some homophobic rant. If declining to participate is now considered homophobia we have the exact opposite of diversity. Everyone must conform or you're evil.
Ahhh ok I get it now. You think that oppression of people is ok if its your belief.You don't see the inconsistency of your position? It's okay to think that anyone who disagrees with you on LGBT is a lesser person, but it's not okay to think LGBT people are lesser people?
Basically what you are saying is that only those who agree with you deserve rights. I mean if that's you position, you're entitled to it, but don't pretend that's diversity or inclusivity. It's the opposite.
You don't see the inconsistency of your position? It's okay to think that anyone who disagrees with you on LGBT is a lesser person, but it's not okay to think LGBT people are lesser people?
Basically what you are saying is that only those who agree with you deserve rights. I mean if that's you position, you're entitled to it, but don't pretend that's diversity or inclusivity. It's the opposite.
What's worse is the way that the team and league have handled it.
Just goes to show that the NHL could care less about diversity. Example after example of how actions speak louder than words.
I would have NEVER thought the NFL would have an openly gay player before the NHL but you can see by toxic hockey culture why this is.
I wonder if we could use Heinola as a centerpiece around a Chychrun deal?
If they were paying me 7 million a year I would happily march in a parade and wear a shirt and shut my homophobe ass up
I’m sure a poverty striken person from a third world country would say the same thing to a waitress in Canada.
Forcing someone to participate is wrong regardless of your compensation.
Obivously I have skin in the game with this whole Provorov thing but as a gay male growing up I did not participate in high level hockey as a kid because that wasn't something gays did. I was subjected to homophobia time and time again playing (not directed at me because I would kick the shit out of someone) but nonetheless on the ice and in my own dressing room.
Well he wasn't forced to participate and now he and his team is dealing with the PR fallout of that.
If an employer asked an employee that identifies as being a member of the LGBTQ community to wear a "I stand With Ukraine" T-Shirt and they said, "No Thank-You." It would be understandable...
Some media peeps think he shouldn’t have been allowed to play in that game. Thoughts?
But what if the employee made a lot of money and the employer would incur embarrassment with its advertisers?
Should that understanding be abolished in that case?
Rhetorical… of course not.
Some media peeps think he shouldn’t have been allowed to play in that game. Thoughts?