Lightning @ Leafs - Mar. 11th, 7:00pm - SNO, Fan 590
- Thread starter CarltonTheBear
- Start date
herman said:
https://twitter.com/PR_NHL/status/1105313100599828487
Wasn't entirely sure the NHL would do something here since the video isn't 100% conclusive that it was Rielly (unlike the Shaw situation), but if the ref corroborates what happened then Rielly will probably get a game.
Guilt Trip
Active member
That will be an interesting game Wed if it is him and he gets a game.
Kin
New member
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:
I disagree to some extent. If it is him, and I'm guessing it is, he'll probably get suspended for a game or so and fair enough but, without wanting to get into it's comparative gravity as a racial slur, I do think it's worth remembering that unlike racial slurs there was a time not too long ago when using words like "gay" or the harsher one Rielly may have used were a fairly normalized part of our culture to deride what was thought to be insufficiently masculine. That doesn't make it ok and it's a good thing that society is moving on from that but pretty recently I was watching a couple of movies and TV shows from, say, 10 years ago where that sort of thing was fairly acceptable and played for laughs. To me that's a slightly different thing from using a slur directed at a member of a group in a bigoted sense.
Or, to use your example, it's like the difference between Rielly being caught saying the N-word to a black player and him being caught singing along to track 4 on Lil Jon's "Crunk Juice". Again, both are wrong and worthy of punishment but there's punishing actual bigotry and punishing getting caught up in the dying vestiges of an insensitive culture.
Guilt Trip
Active member
I could see a scenario of the NHL giving him a game and see the Leafs adding to it. We'll def find out by tomorrow at some point.
ZBBM
Active member
I appreciate your nuanced response Nik. But this is 2019. If someone really has internalized the morals of non discrimination they would never say that word even in the heat of battle so to speak.
If MLSE has clear employment guidelines that state a no tolerance policy for such language in the workplace this might even end up being more serious than a suspension. I could absolutely see someone getting terminated over using the N word, for example.
All this subject to investigation of course.
If MLSE has clear employment guidelines that state a no tolerance policy for such language in the workplace this might even end up being more serious than a suspension. I could absolutely see someone getting terminated over using the N word, for example.
All this subject to investigation of course.
Kin
New member
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:
It's not that I disagree, it's that I don't necessarily think the punishment for someone having failed to have completely internalized the morals of non-discrimination be much more severe than what we've seen sports leagues do in the past(say, the Jays with Kevin Pillar or the Lakers and Kobe Bryant or Andrew Shaw, etc, etc).
hockeyfan1
New member
Zee said:
Same here. Not that worried about this loss, after all the Leafs have beaten Tampa before. The jet lag from the Western swing figured largely with the fatigue factor. Still...
...while the Leafs could have a million excuses for losing, what worries people is the fact that this game showed quite a few ?inconsistencies?, as compared to the Lightning who have been all business this year after each and every victory, etc.
This is the area Babcock would like his team to improve on, the ?heaviness? which is part of the ?mental toughness? of getting things done. Not to say that the Tampa Bay model is the one Dubas is emulating & incorporating a similar structure the most (speed, talent, veterans, prospects, etc., etc.).
I give the Leafs some exception with this game, though not completely. As Auston remarked, it?s time to ?wake up? considering the time in the season enroute to the playoffs.
GO LEAFS GO!
Zee said:
This seemed like pretty wishful thinking to me at first, mostly because despite being a hockey fan for a pretty long time I've literally never heard the phrase "rag it" before, but the audio from Tampa's feed doesn't pick the the f word part of what was allegedly said but it does sound like "rag it" and "rag rag rag" are picked up somewhat clearly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQy-VSoyu5A
Zee said:
From what I've read on twitter it seems like half the hockey community has never heard of it and the other half thinks that half are idiots for not knowing such a common hockey term. Pretty odd. Especially since it doesn't appear to be a regional thing either.
Zee
Active member
CarltonTheBear said:
I'm pretty sure it's an older term. Back in the day we'd say a player was "ragging the puck", like way back in the 80s, but for sure I've used it although it's not common anymore.
I'd also like to give Rielly the benefit of the doubt here. In any interview or interaction you've seen with him, he doesn't seem like the type of guy that would say something like that, I would think he's more aware than that. I guess we will see.
Peter D.
Moderator
First time I've ever heard the term "rag it". What does that mean?
I've yet to hear the audio of the play, so I can't comment either way. What I'm thinking is though...would the ref not have given Rielly a penalty then and there if that is what was said? That term is considered no tolerance these days, and if it was uttered, then the ref should have either thrown Rielly in the box or out of the game. Players and coaches at times get unsportsmanlike penalties for talking back or chewing out a ref. I find it hard to believe this would be let go. And unless I haven't heard anything, the ref didn't come out after the game and suggest anything as such, did he? Would be shocking if Rielly indeed said it consider the type of person he is, but much like Pillar and the Jays, your emotions can get the best of you in the heat of the moment without thinking about the consequences.
That aside, Tampa Bay showed again that they are a well oiled machine. So damn good. At least Matthews gave us that sexy goal to take one positive out of the game.
I've yet to hear the audio of the play, so I can't comment either way. What I'm thinking is though...would the ref not have given Rielly a penalty then and there if that is what was said? That term is considered no tolerance these days, and if it was uttered, then the ref should have either thrown Rielly in the box or out of the game. Players and coaches at times get unsportsmanlike penalties for talking back or chewing out a ref. I find it hard to believe this would be let go. And unless I haven't heard anything, the ref didn't come out after the game and suggest anything as such, did he? Would be shocking if Rielly indeed said it consider the type of person he is, but much like Pillar and the Jays, your emotions can get the best of you in the heat of the moment without thinking about the consequences.
That aside, Tampa Bay showed again that they are a well oiled machine. So damn good. At least Matthews gave us that sexy goal to take one positive out of the game.
Peter D. said:
I've heard this said a few times now and honestly I doubt a ref would call a penalty for this, especially in an isolated incident. If they did, it'd probably happen on a somewhat regular basis and I can't recall any situations where this penalty was called.
I'm not saying that it shouldn't be a penalty, but it's probably a little naive to think that this language unfortunately isn't still somewhat common in the league.
Peter D.
Moderator
CarltonTheBear said:
Yeah, I completely agree. I definitely don't think the term being used is as prevelant as it used to be, but I'm sure it is still used.
But if the league wants to get rid of it, then they should clamp down. I don't see how it can be gotten away with it during the game, then someone gets suspended for a game or two because of it. As insensitive as it may sound, I don't think it is the biggest deal in the world. But I know those heading You Can Play will view it much differently.
herman
Well-known member
The sad thing is that everyone is going to pick a side and circle their wagons and not really concretely addressing that hockey, as a sport that generally requires generations of privilege and wealth to participate in, is not-at-all-surprisingly steeped in a culture that implicitly condones and tolerates attitudes and expressions of intolerance towards non-cis-het-white-male.