Michael Brantley robs Alex Rios of a homerun. Possible play of the year?

kudrew12 · 2012-05-26T22:28:21.703384+00:00

While a great play, I dunno if I'd go so far as to say Play of the Year material.

thumperj · 1 day

Dear... god. WE HAVE TO PAY TO HAVE NICE THINGS?!

Well, I... NEVER...

another_handle · 10 days

~~Shaw had his head down, going for the puck, and wasn't paying enough attention to his situation - not Smith, so I don't really follow your argument.~~

(EDIT: when i wrote the above, i was thinking about the hit on Miller)

The onus of avoiding unnecessary or potentially illegal contact always falls on the person whose actions precipitate the contact. In the case of goalies, the rules explicitly provide additional guidance. For instance, under charging, the following is provided:

A goalkeeper is not “fair game” just because he is outside the goal crease area. The appropriate penalty should be assessed in every case where an opposing player makes unnecessary contact with a goalkeeper. However, incidental contact, at the discretion of the Referee, will be permitted when the goalkeeper is in the act of playing the puck outside his goal crease provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.

In other words, when contact is made with the goalie, it is explicit in the rules that it is the other player's responsibility to avoid contact (or make reasonable effort to do so).

"Keep your head up" is a saying, related to safety - it's a way of saying, no matter who's at fault, you won't get your brain scrambled if you always keep your head up. It does not, however, have any direct application in the rules.

EDIT: to clarify, the idea is basically that the goalie is treated like he's in a non-checking classification. You can play him, you can make "incidental" contact, but you may not body check him, he is not "fair game", and you must attempt to avoid contact at all times.

another_handle · 11 days

It's the skater's responsibility to avoid contact with the goalie. Having your head down is not a defense.

another_handle · 11 days

Not a dive, but my guess is the ref felt he embellished. He went down dramatically, but it's hard to say if it was over-dramatically. Occasionally, we'll throw someone in for embellishing if they shout at us too obnoxiously trying to draw the call.

From the gif alone, I'd say the call is questionable, but not necessarily straight up bullshit.

gravyleaves · 11 days

No, you don't.

MetalTeethAndABeret · 12 days

You're assuming it's reinforced. You have no way of knowing. You also have no idea what the composition of the soil is there; the potential outcomes range from absolutely nothing, to just affecting his neighbors, to affecting more than just his neighbors if the places topple like dominoes, to affecting the whole area if the street is damaged.

So, while I'm with you on everything else, in terms of the building's danger, I'm going to side with the building inspector over some random Internet geologist until I see concrete information.

MetalTeethAndABeret · 12 days

I'm not explicitly defending the city's response, I'm just addressing the specific manner in which you've chosen to attack them.

That said, you think there's no chance, and that it's "hyperbole bullshit" that digging out 35-feet and tons of dirt from underneath your house, in a tightly packed urban neighborhood, could undermine the structural rigidity of neighboring homes or the adjacent street, much less the home it's under? Give me a break.

It's possible that he managed this construction in a way that did not undermine the ground beneath his own property. It's even plausible that he did so in a manner that would not affect his neighbors.

But to think that it's "hyperbole bullshit" to suggest he might not have? You're smoking the good stuff, man.

MetalTeethAndABeret · 12 days

There's plenty of difference; in one case, he's permanently and irrevocably "denied his rights" (as you put it) with no recourse and no compensation, while in the other case he's temporarily denied access to his property while the local government decides how best to ensure that his un-permitted bunker is not a danger to himself, his neighbors, and city infrastructure.

There's a reason why we have building codes. There's a reason we issue occupancy permits. This guy did not follow the rules, and potentially put his whole neighborhood at risk.

MetalTeethAndABeret · 12 days

The property has not been seized; it's been condemned. There's a world of difference. If something is seized, the state (or a subdivision thereof) takes permanent ownership and must compensate. If it's condemned, the occupancy permit is revoked, the owner retains ownership, but he may not live there until the complaint is settled and he regains legal occupancy.

MetalTeethAndABeret · 12 days

I'm not sure that his property has officially been confiscated/taken from him. It sounds like the property has been condemned and, as he no longer has an occupancy permit, he simply can't live there.

Is there a source that says it's specifically been confiscated from him?

helpmeout89 · 13 days

People don't understand that the defects have to already be in there, they don't generate simply because someone is inbred

While true, that ignores the real cause for concern with incest. It's not about whether the defects are already there - it's about likelihood of them being expressed in the phenome.

For any given defective, recessive gene 'a', where 'A' is the non-defective and dominent gene, let's assume that 'a' only occurs at all in 1% of the population and 99% of the population has 'AA'. Let's assume you have 'Aa'. If you mate outside your family, there is very little chance of you mating with another 'Aa' or an 'aa'. Even if you do, there's still only a 25% chance of producing an 'aa' (as well as 25% AA, and 50% Aa, so you're just as likely to remove the 'a' from your line as you are to produce an expressed 'a').

Given 1-in-100 odds, your chances of producing an offspring who actually expresses the 'a' (by being 'aa') are practically negligible. Now, consider that most well-known and relatively "common" hereditary diseases actually occur at rates of around 1000-1 or 2500-1, and you see that it's like hitting the genetic jackpot. You have to overcome the odds of even finding another 'a' gene before even considering the 25% chance of passing it along in such a mating.

Now, consider that if you already have the 'a', what are the chances that your sister does too? If you're lucky and your parents were AA and Aa, there's only a 50% chance. If they were Aa and Aa, congrats, your chances are now 75%. If, god forbid, either of them were 'aa' to start with, it's 100% even if the other is 'AA'.

IVIalefactoR · 18 days

The only HR I've ever hit was off an eephus a couple of years ago. They're a bitch and a half...

gtj · 20 days

Indeed

gtj · 20 days

"We all look 10-15 years older than the story that supposedly happens after this one..."

Yeeeeeeah... No.

gtj · 20 days

Like, Oh God, Oh God, we're all going to ...

Oh.

I gave my self a sad.

gtj · 20 days

Counter argument: The new AbFab...

Frostygaze · 20 days

Preggo Harry Potter: Months 5-9

BanksKnowsBest · 22 days

We had a beer league team with this name last year...

Nefandi · 23 days

It's ridiculously easy to be sued in the financial world

You get "sued" in civil proceedings. There are criminal complaints. Much higher burden for both indictments and convictions than ever get applied in civil proceedings.

_neunte · 23 days

I'm sure it was situational. However, the purpose is awareness isn't it? The bus slowed down and you were aware?

Mission accomplished, perhaps?

_neunte · 23 days

It's just that a lot of cyclists have demonstrated either ignorance or defiance of road safety laws.

This is not unique to cyclists; plenty of motorists have demonstrated the exact same ignorance and defiance.

Beyond this, keep in mind that the danger in motorist-cyclist incidents is not one of equal danger. If I fuck up while I'm cycling, certainly I present a danger to a motorist, but by a wide margin the danger I present is to myself alone. If I fuck up while driving, the fact that I'm driving a vehicle comprised of a couple thousand pounds of steel makes the chief danger be not to myself but to another human being (in the context of motorist/cyclist accidents).

_neunte · 23 days

Caveat: I'm a cyclist, and I was hit by an SUV who turned in front of me while I was in a dedicated bike lane, and the driver immediately fled the scene. Thank the maker that I wasn't injured seriously...

That said, I only saw the rally while walking downtown, and when they crossed Congress & 5th or so, the Rally was obeying all traffic laws - no "weaving", everyone stopped at the light, and so on.

fibes · 23 days

Again, you putting words into my mouth.

Additionally, saying that "cops have a credibility problem" is an overbroad generalization. They are not one entity with invariable, overarching characteristics. They are an organization comprised of individuals, just like any other government organization, any company, any group of friends, or any other collection of random people on the planet. If this cop has a credibility problem, let's hear about it. Until then, you're just being obtuse and reactionary.

the_new_me

TROPHY CASE

the_new_me

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login