GDT Game 4: 4/19/16 | 8:30PM CST | @ Hawks | NBCSN/FSMW/Y98

[cardsfan04]

Why again do those girls need to be showing a lot of leg, cleavage and their stomachs?
You don't understand why that might be considered degrading to women?
Besides, you JUST said yourself...all you want to do is sit back with a beer and watch the game. So what do you care how they are dressed?.

The girls who work these jobs don't feel degraded and they're the ones out there. Many get modeling and commercial gigs from it that pays money. I have no problem with the ice crew at all. Can you really say with a straight face that you find this picture degrading?


How about this? Degrading? Nope

They pulled a hot woman out of the crowd, put her in the middle of the ice, insinuated she was a stripper and played stripper music?
Seriously?
Gee...I can't imagine why they stopped doing that.
That sounds like an idea that would get someone fired.?

You're adding drama to it - it was done for decades and no one had a problem with it until the PC crowd came, the Hawks started winning and drawing national interest, and the front office got scared about image. And look cprice, I know you're the admin here and have some accountability to the Blues organization since they link their main site to here so I understand you have to be PC in your responses regarding this - I get it. But I know if I sat at a game with you you'd have no problem with any of it.

You do this a lot. "You don't really disagree with me. You're just saying you do." It's annoying as shit. Sometimes people have opinions different than yours and aren't just putting up some facade.

[Kerfuffle]

You do this a lot. "You don't really disagree with me. You're just saying you do." It's annoying as shit. Sometimes people have opinions different than yours and aren't just putting up some facade.

There actually was no disagreement on the main issue - we are saying the same thing - Shaw was wrong, punishment was needed, etc. It's the added drama you put in that my BS detector has to point out. In your case it was the oh my god, over the top on how offended you were that I don't buy.

[midgensa]

Why again do those girls need to be showing a lot of leg, cleavage and their stomachs?
You don't understand why that might be considered degrading to women?
Besides, you JUST said yourself...all you want to do is sit back with a beer and watch the game. So what do you care how they are dressed?.

The girls who work these jobs don't feel degraded and they're the ones out there. Many get modeling and commercial gigs from it that pays money. I have no problem with the ice crew at all. Can you really say with a straight face that you find this picture degrading?

How about this? Degrading? Nope

They pulled a hot woman out of the crowd, put her in the middle of the ice, insinuated she was a stripper and played stripper music?
Seriously?
Gee...I can't imagine why they stopped doing that.
That sounds like an idea that would get someone fired.?

You're adding drama to it - it was done for decades and no one had a problem with it until the PC crowd came, the Hawks started winning and drawing national interest, and the front office got scared about image. And look cprice, I know you're the admin here and have some accountability to the Blues organization since they link their main site to here so I understand you have to be PC in your responses regarding this - I get it. But I know if I sat at a game with you you'd have no problem with any of it.

Seriously? You are comparing a woman in the crowd to women who are paid to have this appearance?

This is not about PC. This about taking the hottest woman in the crowd. Putting her on the ice. And, because she is so hot, insinuating she should be a stripper instead of whatever else she can do with herself.

If you honestly do not see the serious problem with that, then you are a part of the problem.

It is not OK to insinuate a woman is or should be a stripper because she is hot. It is not OK to insinuate a woman is or should not be a stripper because she is not hot. It is not OK to insinuate that a woman is here for sexual entertainment and that everyone who is not OK with this is "too PC."

It is insulting, degrading and flat out, totally sexist.

My wife, who is rather attractive, has a f@cking doctorate and has to put up with crap like this all the time. It is not all right. It should be called out every time. And it should have no place in a decent society.

BTW, All of this is the same for Shaw's actions. Do I think everyone who uses that word is homophobic? Nope. Do I think everyone who says n***er is racist? Nope. Most of the time it is people who are in a rage and cannot control themselves. It is still WRONG and should be addressed each and every time. Period.

[cprice12]

Why again do those girls need to be showing a lot of leg, cleavage and their stomachs?
You don't understand why that might be considered degrading to women?
Besides, you JUST said yourself...all you want to do is sit back with a beer and watch the game. So what do you care how they are dressed?.

The girls who work these jobs don't feel degraded and they're the ones out there. Many get modeling and commercial gigs from it that pays money. I have no problem with the ice crew at all. Can you really say with a straight face that you find this picture degrading?


How about this? Degrading? Nope

They pulled a hot woman out of the crowd, put her in the middle of the ice, insinuated she was a stripper and played stripper music?
Seriously?
Gee...I can't imagine why they stopped doing that.
That sounds like an idea that would get someone fired.?

You're adding drama to it - it was done for decades and no one had a problem with it until the PC crowd came, the Hawks started winning and drawing national interest, and the front office got scared about image. And look cprice, I know you're the admin here and have some accountability to the Blues organization since they link their main site to here so I understand you have to be PC in your responses regarding this - I get it. But I know if I sat at a game with you you'd have no problem with any of it.

I don't have to be PC. We aren't affiliated with the Blues official site in any way. We used to be linked off of their site, but they did away with that section of their site a couple years ago.

Do I find those pictures degrading? No, I don't...why would I? I'm not a woman. But if women say that they feel objectified by it, who am I to say they shouldn't feel that way? This is kind of their call if you ask me. And the vast majority of them might not be offended...I dunno.

But I bet there would be quite a few guys in the stands that would be uncomfortable and complain if the Hawks had the Chipendales out there cleaning the ice every night. Granted, men and women are different when it comes to that kind of thing...but still.

And just because something was done for decades, doesn't make it ok. That's actually a horrible reason to use to keep something that we learn can be inappropriate, offensive, degrading, etc to a group of people. I can think of a lot of things that were "done for decades" and were rightfully done away with because we have grown as a society.

[cardsfan04]

You do this a lot. "You don't really disagree with me. You're just saying you do." It's annoying as shit. Sometimes people have opinions different than yours and aren't just putting up some facade.

There actually was no disagreement on the main issue - we are saying the same thing - Shaw was wrong, punishment was needed, etc. It's the added drama you put in that my BS detector has to point out. In your case it was the oh my god, over the top on how offended you were that I don't buy.

At what point was I over the top? I have said all of the following:

-I don't think this makes Shaw a bigot
-I don't think this is the end of the world that he said it
-Offended isn't how I would describe my reaction to it
-I'm willing to cut him some slack for it being in the heat of the moment

HOWEVER, it is a slur. Slurs are, by definition, bigoted words or phrases. As such, the NHL had to address it, and, IMO, a fine wouldn't have been enough because the CBA only allows small fines.

I'll admit, I sometimes lean toward the PC side of things. That's not because I think using the wrong word (in isolated incidents) has a major practical impact. There are far bigger issues than whether he said faggot or asshole when addressing the referee, and I suspect his intention was the same either way because of the colloquialized meaning of the word.

That said, I think people too often dismiss the impact of slurs and things of this nature as relative non-issues without even giving any actual consideration to whether it has any negative impact at all. That's where my issue comes from with this. If the NHL (or society in general) tolerates this kind of thing, it creates a culture of intolerance, as an unintended consequence. As an isolated incident, it's not a huge deal, just a poor choice of words. As a culture though, it is a big deal if this kind of thing is tolerated. And, when this gets dismissed as no big deal, it helps create that negative culture. It's not that I'm hugely outraged by this. I just don't want it swept under the rug either. Sometimes the PC crowd speaks too loudly and makes a mountain out of a molehill. But, usually, it's coming from the right standpoint.

[ecbm]

Ah, the political correctness canard.

You know, the idea that calling someone a n***** or a f** or a k*** was low-class, offensive, hurtful and potentially an incitement to violence existed before the concept of political correctness. That latter term just describes the shift in perception at a certain point in history where most people decided to stand up and say that rather than just gritting their teeth and ignoring bigotry.

As for the officiating-it's been horrible in this series and it's favored one team over the other with pretty solid consistency. Rarely have I seen the media and punditry openly call out the absurdity of a call like they have with the Crawford/Fabbri thing. It's not surprising since it was so very over the top-watch the video. They (rightly) weren't going to call anything on Fabbri until Crawford attacked him. I don't think there's any full-blown, planned-out conspiracy here, but:

-If you think the NHL wouldn't prefer Chicago to advance I think you're a fool. Ratings are in the toilet in Canada. I'm sure Bettman & his merry men are shitting a brick thinking that Chicago, LA and NYR could all go out this round (a scenario that would leave me ECSTATIC).

-There's no way that the league's officials aren't aware of that.

-It's hard to get those things out of your mind when you see such egregious crap as the Crawford thing, Shaw not getting more than 2 minutes for what he did and the Blackhawks getting away with 7 men on the ice, goaltender interference, etc. while the Blues are penalized over an interpretation of the offside rule that nobody understands and which took the refs 5 minutes of deliberation to reach.

I really hope this all ends tonight.

[glen a richter]

On the bright side, if Chicago, LA and the Rags all go out in the first round, who will be left for Bettman and Co. to pull strings for? He'll probably just let it play out and whoever wins he'll just accept and move on. Translation: 2nd round officiating will be much improved over the slop we've seen in the 1st round.

[gaijin]

On the bright side, if Chicago, LA and the Rags all go out in the first round, who will be left for Bettman and Co. to pull strings for? He'll probably just let it play out and whoever wins he'll just accept and move on. Translation: 2nd round officiating will be much improved over the slop we've seen in the 1st round.

Washington and Pittsburgh.

And Detroit, if they make it through.

[glen a richter]

On the bright side, if Chicago, LA and the Rags all go out in the first round, who will be left for Bettman and Co. to pull strings for? He'll probably just let it play out and whoever wins he'll just accept and move on. Translation: 2nd round officiating will be much improved over the slop we've seen in the 1st round.

Washington and Pittsburgh.

And Detroit, if they make it through.

Detroit ain't making it through, and Washington and Pittsburgh can't play each other in the SCF so someone has to lose. How in the world will he decide who goes on and who goes home?

[theohall]

Ah, the political correctness canard.

You know, the idea that calling someone a n***** or a f** or a k*** was low-class, offensive, hurtful and potentially an incitement to violence existed before the concept of political correctness. That latter term just describes the shift in perception at a certain point in history where most people decided to stand up and say that rather than just gritting their teeth and ignoring bigotry.

As for the officiating-it's been horrible in this series and it's favored one team over the other with pretty solid consistency. Rarely have I seen the media and punditry openly call out the absurdity of a call like they have with the Crawford/Fabbri thing. It's not surprising since it was so very over the top-watch the video. They (rightly) weren't going to call anything on Fabbri until Crawford attacked him. I don't think there's any full-blown, planned-out conspiracy here, but:

-If you think the NHL wouldn't prefer Chicago to advance I think you're a fool. Ratings are in the toilet in Canada. I'm sure Bettman & his merry men are shitting a brick thinking that Chicago, LA and NYR could all go out this round (a scenario that would leave me ECSTATIC).

-There's no way that the league's officials aren't aware of that.

-It's hard to get those things out of your mind when you see such egregious crap as the Crawford thing, Shaw not getting more than 2 minutes for what he did and the Blackhawks getting away with 7 men on the ice, goaltender interference, etc. while the Blues are penalized over an interpretation of the offside rule that nobody understands and which took the refs 5 minutes of deliberation to reach.

I really hope this all ends tonight.

Not only all of this, why wasn't Shaw given an instigator minor at the end of the game. Steen never threw a punch at anyone, yet was still given a roughing minor. Check the replay. I've watched it several times and still can't find Steen punching anyone. What Shaw did, immediately throwing punches with his gloves on and the opponent face down on the ice - that's instigating - not just roughing. And instigating minors after the final whistle include an automatic suspension. NHL referees are being too much of ####ies to actually call the things the Blackhawks are doing that warrant a suspension or would lead to a suspension after a 2nd incident - ie there should have been an instigating minor on Crawford. Think he keeps going after players if that's already been called. Because a 2nd one in the playoffs - automatic suspension. That's the problem with the officials not getting the calls right. The Blackhawks committing the potentially suspendable infractions aren't facing the potential suspensions, because the refs won't make the calls. Had those calls been made, you can be damn sure the players facing a potential suspension quit acting like the d-bag players they are.