The Flyers went into the second period with a 2-0 lead and looking
much better than the Canadiens, but the #### was only beginning to hit
the fan when Alexei Kovalev used his stick to bat down the puck into
the net behind goaltender Marty Biron. Everyone who isn’t a Canadiens
fan could clearly see that it was a high-stick (above the crossbar)
simply by the fact that… his stick hit the crossbar. The referees’
whistles, however, were silent.
That stuff happens, karma, yada yada yada…
With about a minute left in regulation in the third period and the
orange and black up 3 to 2, center Mike Richards clearly knocked
Kovalev down with his shoulder, but the refs claimed that Richards
kneed him, and the Canadiens got a power play with 1:09 remaining on
the clock. Unsurprisingly, they pulled their goaltender to create a
6-on-4 advantage, and, as luck would have it, Jeff Carter’s stick broke
on the face-off — essentially making it 6-on-3 — and the puck glided
right over to Kovalev who promptly tied the game at threes with 29
seconds left in the third period.
The Flyers’ bad luck continued when Tom Kostopoulos scored 48 seconds into overtime.
So, we can say that the referees were responsible for two Canadiens goals and indirectly responsible for another (Kostopoulos’).
“You know what? I think the officiating is good,”
said Bettman. “I think it undergoes intense scrutiny this time of year.
Of all the people on the ice and surrounding the ice, our officials
probably make the fewest mistakes. This is a game of mistakes,
including the officials, and we hold them accountable.”
It’s not just the labor issues that have the NHL lagging well behind
the other three major sports organizations — it’s the blatantly awful
officiating, and the commissioner of it all has not a clue.
TOP 10 HOLIDAY-THEMED ITEMS BLOGGERS SHOULD DISCUSS
Given that it’s the festive holiday season where giving is en vogue,
I thought I’d help out my fellow bloggers with some creative, original
ideas for a post. I know lots of bloggers have been and still are busy
traveling and visiting family, so the time to brainstorm ideas is
significantly shortened. You’ll thank me later.
Busted Coverage put the top 64 Ballhype sports blogs in an NCAA-style bracket, and seeded them in four groups, #1-16.
Surprisingly, Crashburn Alley is on there, even if it’s as a #16
seed. It’s up against some extremely fit competition, so I may only
shed a few tears following my inevitable first-round exit.
Imagine one day calling a hospital to talk with your friend
who is recovering from surgery, and not being able to complete the call
because you and/or the hospital did not subscribe to the phone company’s “premium package.”
Or, imagine that you are only allowed to use a certain amount of electricity per day because you haven’t yet upgraded to the electric company’s “elite power package.”
Terrible, isn’t it? But that is what they’re trying to do with the Internet.
The Justice Department on Thursday said Internet service providers should be allowed to charge a fee for priority Web traffic.
The agency told the Federal Communications
Commission, which is reviewing high-speed Internet practices, that it
is opposed to “Net neutrality,” the principle that all Internet sites
should be equally accessible to any Web user.
Several phone and cable companies, such as A####mp;T Inc.,
Verizon Communications Inc. and Comcast Corp., have previously said
they want the option to charge some users more money for loading
certain content or Web sites faster than others.
This has already been occurring in small instances, most recently with Comcast. As the Washington Post writes:
Comcast has punished some transgressors by cutting
off their Internet service, arguing that excessive downloaders hog
Internet capacity and slow down the network for other customers. The
company declines to reveal its download limits.
Remember when the Internet wasn’t a highway of commerce, when it
belonged to and was financed by the public? The Internet was only
recently commercialized and now the corporations are trying to funnel
as much money out of your bank account as they can.
It’s not enough that companies like Comcast and Verizon offer
three-in-one packages that include television, telephone, and Internet,
with the former two running your bill into the $200-300 range. Now they
want to inflate that bill even more from the $20-40 monthly rate for
broadband Internet into the stratosphere with cable and telephone. And
they have a near-monopoly on the market, so you almost have no choice
but to open your wallet upside-down at the steps of their corporate
offices.
The Internet is the last virgin entity of freedom. Let’s keep it that way.
Lately, I have noticed a common trend among most Internet poker players: they don’t know how to play tournament-style poker.
The scenario I am talking about is when a player is all-in, and
there are two other players in the hand playing for a side-pot.
Oftentimes, one player will bet out at the other in attempt to win the
side-pot and go against the all-in player. And, in my experience, the
player that bet out at the side-pot ends up losing to the all-in
player, allowing him to not only continue playing in the tournament,
but to have a good shot at building up his chip stack even more.
The two players should not even bet to create a side pot; they
should check the hand down to the river, that way they have two hands
that can possibly knock out the all-in player, allowing themselves to
move up in the money.
The only time one should ever bet in that situation is if he is sure
he has the best hand (i.e. getting the nut flush or a full house) and
he is trying to extract chips from his opponent. If your hand is not
made (and getting a pair, or even two pair, does not constitute
“made”), collude (this is legal collusion) with your opponent. As the
proverb goes, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
Just for clarification, here are two scenarios — one is correct, one is not.
Incorrect
Blinds $25/$50
Player A posts small blind $25
Player B posts big blind $50
Player C folds
Player D folds
Player E raises to $250 and is all-in
Player F folds
Player G folds
Player A calls $225
Player B calls $200
Flop [Ks 9d 3s]
Player A bets $100
Player B folds
Turn [5c]
River [2d]
Player A shows [Ac Qd]
Player E shows [8d 8c]
Player E has a pair of eights
Player A has high card — Ace kicker
Player E wins main pot ($750) with a pair of eights
Correct
Blinds $25/$50
Player A posts small blind $25
Player B posts big blind $50
Player C folds
Player D folds
Player E raises to $250 and is all-in
Player F folds
Player G folds
Player A calls $225
Player B calls $200
Flop [Ks 9d 3s]
Player A checks
Player B checks
Player A checks
Turn [5c]
Player B checks
Player A checks
Player B checks
River [2d]
Player A shows [Ac Qd]
Player B shows [5d 5s]
Player E shows [8d 8c]
Player A has high card — Ace kicker
Player B has three of a kind, three fives
Player E has a pair of eights
Player B wins main pot ($750) with three of a kind, three fives
Player E finished the tournament in 7th place
The side-pot-betting isn't so bad early in tournaments, but when it's
getting down towards the final table, there's no question you want
everyone else to drop like flies. Roughly, you're cutting down your
all-in opponent's chance to win by 17% regardless of what the cards are
(1-on-1 is 50%/50%; 2-on-1 is 33%/33%/33%).
Visit my new website -- Crashburn Alley!>
Crashburn Alley is a fusion of the phrase "crash and burn" with Ashburn Alley, which is beyond the center field fence at Citizens Bank Park. You can read more about Crashburn Alley here.>
I'm a diehard Phillies fan who is still reeling from the 1993 World Series and Joe Carter's three-run homerun in Game 6.
