Geez Rutherford, ... Just Stop with the Whinning

[hf101]

“The league has got to fix it,” Rutherford said. “In other leagues, they protect star players. In basketball, they don’t let their top players get abused. And in our league, well the thing I keep hearing is, ‘That’s hockey. That’s hockey,’ No, it’s not.”

 

Jim Rutherford seems to think Crosby needs to be protected.  That all superstars in the NHL need to be protected.  That the league will need to go back to the 70's style with enforcers to protect its stars.  

 

“I hear year after year how the league and everyone loves how the Penguins play,” said Penguins GM Jim Rutherford. “ ‘They play pure hockey and they skate.’ Well, now it’s going to have to change and I feel bad about it, but it’s the only way we can do it. We’re going to have to get one or two guys…and some of these games that should be just good hockey games will turn into a sh—show. We’ll go right back to where we were in the ’70s and it’s really a shame.”

 

Crosby and the rest of the Penguins play like any other team in the NHL with good play and cheapshots.  I guess Rutherford didn't see Crosby slice Methot's finger, or Crosby's cheap shot to O'Reilly's groin.  

 

This whining by the Penguins GM is just sickening, throwing these comments out there right before the Stanley Cup Finals begin.  All as a ploy to somehow influence the way the next set of games will be officiated.  

 

If the Penguins are going to win another cup it needs to be because they are the better team and that the officiating has fairly called each and every game.  Not because Crosby deserves stardom untouchable treatment.  

 

http://www.thehockeynews.com/playoffs/article/penguins-expect-crosby-abuse-to-continue-but-they-re-growing-tired-of-it

[nossagog]

  Awesome, the Pens don't even play a game and we've found a way to complain about them.   Good job.

[flyerrod]

54 minutes ago, nossagog said:

  Awesome, the Pens don't even play a game and we've found a way to complain about them.   Good job.

Well your GM started it......Just sayin'..... Gamesmanship 101, plant the seed before you even step on the ice. Rutherford is not the first GM to do this nor will he be the last. We should expect a retort from the Nashville GM in 3....2....1....

[nossagog]

Yep.  He was asked a question by a reporter, and he answered it, how dare he. The reporter writes an article, and all of a sudden its about the Pens trying to work the officials.  Got it. 

[B21]

9 hours ago, hf101 said:

“The league has got to fix it,” Rutherford said. “In other leagues, they protect star players. In basketball, they don’t let their top players get abused. And in our league, well the thing I keep hearing is, ‘That’s hockey. That’s hockey,’ No, it’s not.”

 

Jim Rutherford seems to think Crosby needs to be protected.  That all superstars in the NHL need to be protected.  That the league will need to go back to the 70's style with enforcers to protect its stars.  

 

“I hear year after year how the league and everyone loves how the Penguins play,” said Penguins GM Jim Rutherford. “ ‘They play pure hockey and they skate.’ Well, now it’s going to have to change and I feel bad about it, but it’s the only way we can do it. We’re going to have to get one or two guys…and some of these games that should be just good hockey games will turn into a sh—show. We’ll go right back to where we were in the ’70s and it’s really a shame.”

 

Crosby and the rest of the Penguins play like any other team in the NHL with good play and cheapshots.  I guess Rutherford didn't see Crosby slice Methot's finger, or Crosby's cheap shot to O'Reilly's groin.  

 

This whining by the Penguins GM is just sickening, throwing these comments out there right before the Stanley Cup Finals begin.  All as a ploy to somehow influence the way the next set of games will be officiated.  

 

If the Penguins are going to win another cup it needs to be because they are the better team and that the officiating has fairly called each and every game.  Not because Crosby deserves stardom untouchable treatment.  

 

http://www.thehockeynews.com/playoffs/article/penguins-expect-crosby-abuse-to-continue-but-they-re-growing-tired-of-it

 

Sometimes your bias can be transparent. 

 

1) Rutherford is right.

2) No one cares what Crosby puts up with. It's only "news" when he dishes out.

3) Trotz did the same thing in the Pens/Caps series after the Game 1 loss. The result? The first 4 penalties of Game 2 were called on the Pens in a 6-2 loss. I must have missed the post calling Trotsz "whiny" and "sickening". 

4) If as a fan you are going to whine (irony) everytime Crosby does not get called for something he should then whine when something against him goes uncalled. 

 

Enough already.

[B21]

7 minutes ago, nossagog said:

Yep.  He was asked a question by a reporter, and he answered it, how dare he. The reporter writes an article, and all of a sudden its about the Pens trying to work the officials.  Got it. 

 

For shame... 

[flyerrod]

1 hour ago, nossagog said:

Yep.  He was asked a question by a reporter, and he answered it, how dare he. The reporter writes an article, and all of a sudden its about the Pens trying to work the officials.  Got it. 

Yep. No reporter has ever served up a lob pitch of a question for answer. I am not a Pens fan nor have I ever played one on a tv show. I am pretty certain that most people realize this. As I said, it is straight up gamesmanship. The Nashville powers that be will be served their lob when someone asks them about Rutherford's remarks. Truthfully, this is the first Stanley Cup Series where I don't like either team and will probably just watch the highlights. I actually dislike Subban more than Crosby and I never thought I would hate anyone that much other than MacDud.......

[hf101]

50 minutes ago, nossagog said:

  Awesome, the Pens don't even play a game and we've found a way to complain about them.   Good job.

 

It isn't the play on the ice, nor the officiating which prompted this topic, it's a ploy by Rutherford to expect that the rules on the ice should be different for Star players.  His comments are easily interpreted as complaining of the officiating.  We all know the officials call less in the playoffs than in the regular season, if he truely wants this to happen then he should have been critiquing every game of the playoffs and rendering suggestions at the GM meetings.

 

If he was asked a question by a reporter he could have stated that star player protection might be topic for the GM meetings not the Stanley Cup Finals.  

 

I'm irritated that he is suggesting that the rules then should be called different for certain players.    Since he stated that Star players in the NHL should be protected like as in basketball he is then suggesting that penalties should be called for every bump just as in basketball, which basically means stars in the NHL should then be uncheckable.   I'm all for penalizing all the cheap shots, do it with on the ice penalties, fines, suspensions.  Enforce the rules in the rulebook, but last I noticed checking is a part of the game of hockey and that means star players can be checked when they have the puck.

 

I'm more annoyed at his suggestion for the need to bring back enforcers to the game with this false sense of need for star protection.  We don't need enforcers back in the NHL for any reason.

 

 

 

 

[B21]

11 minutes ago, hf101 said:

 

It isn't the play on the ice, nor the officiating which prompted this topic, it's a ploy by Rutherford to expect that the rules on the ice should be different for Star players.  His comments are easily interpreted as complaining of the officiating.  We all know the officials call less in the playoffs than in the regular season, if he truely wants this to happen then he should have been critiquing every game of the playoffs and rendering suggestions at the GM meetings.

 

If he was asked a question by a reporter he could have stated that star player protection might be topic for the GM meetings not the Stanley Cup Finals.  

 

I'm irritated that he is suggesting that the rules then should be called different for certain players.    Since he stated that Star players in the NHL should be protected like as in basketball he is then suggesting that penalties should be called for every bump just as in basketball, which basically means stars in the NHL should then be uncheckable.   I'm all for penalizing all the cheap shots, do it with on the ice penalties, fines, suspensions.  Enforce the rules in the rulebook, but last I noticed checking is a part of the game of hockey and that means star players can be checked when they have the puck.

 

I'm more annoyed at his suggestion for the need to bring back enforcers to the game with this false sense of need for star protection.  We don't need enforcers back in the NHL for any reason.

 

 

 

 

 

Except that's not what he's advocating. You are assuming that star players put up with the same type/amount cheap stuff as your "average" players do. Sure it happens. But not nearly to the extent that the "star" players have to deal with. No one is trying to get under the skin of Chris Kunitz or Connor Sheary. There is a reason for that. 

[B21]

34 minutes ago, flyerrod said:

Yep. No reporter has ever served up a lob pitch of a question for answer. I am not a Pens fan nor have I ever played one on a tv show. I am pretty certain that most people realize this. As I said, it is straight up gamesmanship. The Nashville powers that be will be served their lob when someone asks them about Rutherford's remarks. Truthfully, this is the first Stanley Cup Series where I don't like either team and will probably just watch the highlights. I actually dislike Subban more than Crosby and I never thought I would hate anyone that much other than MacDud.......

 

This. Rutherford's team is coming of a series in which Crosby was outright abused (even Mike Milbury noted it) with little to no repercussions. He is clearly planting a seed here. Nothing more. 

[hf101]

1 hour ago, B21 said:

 

Sometimes your bias can be transparent. 

 

1) Rutherford is right.

2) No one cares what Crosby puts up with. It's only "news" when he dishes out.

3) Trotz did the same thing in the Pens/Caps series after the Game 1 loss. The result? The first 4 penalties of Game 2 were called on the Pens in a 6-2 loss. I must have missed the post calling Trotsz "whiny" and "sickening". 

4) If as a fan you are going to whine (irony) everytime Crosby does not get called for something he should then whine when something against him goes uncalled. 

 

Enough already.

 

1.  Rutherford isn't right.  Why should star players be made uncheckable as in basketball?  Why should there be different rules for star players than everyone else on the ice?  

 

2.  Does Crosby really put up with more than other players in the playoffs?  

3.  Trotz didn't make the suggestion that teams will need enforcers to protect star players, or that the rules need be different to protect star players.  Was he whining, yes. maybe it was mentioned in that thread, I dunno.

4.  Actually, I have.  I'm pretty sure you will find posts where I'm against players targeting injury to any player on the ice Crosby included.

[hf101]

25 minutes ago, B21 said:

 

Except that's not what he's advocating. You are assuming that star players put up with the same type/amount cheap stuff as your "average" players do. Sure it happens. But not nearly to the extent that the "star" players have to deal with. No one is trying to get under the skin of Chris Kunitz or Connor Sheary. There is a reason for that. 

 

It's exactly what he said.  He is advocating for different rules for Star players.

 

12 hours ago, hf101 said:

“The league has got to fix it,” Rutherford said. “In other leagues, they protect star players. In basketball, they don’t let their top players get abused. And in our league, well the thing I keep hearing is, ‘That’s hockey. That’s hockey,’ No, it’s not.”

 

[B21]

23 minutes ago, hf101 said:

 

1.  Rutherford isn't right.  Why should star players be made uncheckable as in basketball?  Why should there be different rules for star players than everyone else on the ice?  

 

2.  Does Crosby really put up with more than other players in the playoffs?  

3.  Trotz didn't make the suggestion that teams will need enforcers to protect star players, or that the rules need be different to protect star players.  Was he whining, yes. maybe it was mentioned in that thread, I dunno.

4.  Actually, I have.  I'm pretty sure you will find posts where I'm against players targeting injury to any player on the ice Crosby included.

 

1. At no point does he even allude to "special treatment" or "different rules". He feels that star players are forced to put up with a lot more "abuse" (for lack of a better word) than your average player - especially in the playoffs.

 

2. Yes. That's not even a debatable point.

 

3. Trotz whined about the officiating. Period. No one said "boo" about it. But Rutherford does the same and he's "sickening" (your word).

 

4. So you admit it happens yet kill Rutherford for voicing his opinion when asked about it. Bravo. 

[B21]

26 minutes ago, hf101 said:

 

It's exactly what he said.  He is advocating for different rules for Star players.

 

 

 

Show me where he says that ("different rules"). He wants star players (obviously his especially) "protected".  My assumption (and I'd bet the assumption of anyone who is objective) is that he feels star players are target more than your average player and a lot more in the playoffs. Your assumption (shocking) is that he wants special treatment. 

[B21]

@hf101

 

Go ahead. Tell me he (and other star players) aren't targeted...

 

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2017/05/sidney-crosby-gets-worked-over-byottawa-senators

 

http://www.foxsports.com/nhl/story/the-senators-tormented-sidney-crosby-during-game-6-of-the-eastern-conference-finals-052417

 

http://canadianews.org/world/2017/05/24/160777-crosby-penguins-probably-deserved-better-vs-senators-in-game-6.html

 

http://fansided.com/2017/05/24/two-senators-pick-penguins-sidney-crosby/

 

That's without really looking.

 

Now try and explain how Rutherford was not "complaining" about that and was instead advocating for special treatment for his star players.

 

 

[hf101]

45 minutes ago, B21 said:

 

Show me where he says that ("different rules"). He wants star players (obviously his especially) "protected".  My assumption (and I'd bet the assumption of anyone who is objective) is that he feels star players are target more than your average player and a lot more in the playoffs. Your assumption (shocking) is that he wants special treatment. 

 

Rutherford didn't specifically say different rules, but his statements make for an easy interpretation of his comments.   He made the comparative statement to basketball for star players.  Well, the rules in the two games are exactly opposite.  In hockey, one can check a player with the puck and in basketball, you can't touch the player with the ball.  Obviously, since the two games are completely different and to be more like basketball, hockey would need rule changes.  He's the one that said he wants more protection for star players.  

 

This is his quote:  http://www.thehockeynews.com/playoffs/article/penguins-expect-crosby-abuse-to-continue-but-they-re-growing-tired-of-it

1 hour ago, hf101 said:

“The league has got to fix it,” Rutherford said. “In other leagues, they protect star players. In basketball, they don’t let their top players get abused. And in our league, well the thing I keep hearing is, ‘That’s hockey. That’s hockey,’ No, it’s not.”

 

 

It is hockey, and it has been it is all a part of hockey and the Stanley Cup playoffs for a long time.   We hear all the time let them play, let them decide the game on the ice.   Refs keep the whistles in your pocket.    There is more hacking, slashing, interference and roughing than in the regular season,  but it happens to everyone on the ice, not just to the stars.  The Media may just write about the stars, but the extra stuff will be there until the refs call it.  If the game needs to be called tighter than it currently is why doesn't he just say that?  Why instead make comparative statements to basketball, or suggest that teams will need to bring back enforcers to protect players? 

 

Obviously, it is a team strategy for a seven-game series to wear down on the stars of the game or the weakest area of a team to get a win.  All teams do this.

 

 

 

[nossagog]

1 hour ago, hf101 said:

 

1.  Rutherford isn't right.  Why should star players be made uncheckable as in basketball?  Why should there be different rules for star players than everyone else on the ice?  

 

2.  Does Crosby really put up with more than other players in the playoffs?  

3.  Trotz didn't make the suggestion that teams will need enforcers to protect star players, or that the rules need be different to protect star players.  Was he whining, yes. maybe it was mentioned in that thread, I dunno.

4.  Actually, I have.  I'm pretty sure you will find posts where I'm against players targeting injury to any player on the ice Crosby included.

1) I'll say it, you're right HF, and Rutherford is wrong. There shouldn't be a different set of rules.  The current rules need to be enforced as they are stated in the rules.  It goes straight down the line for all calls that are in the book.  None of these conversations would happen if they did.  

 

Players are allowed to hack down on the hands of other players, and it gets called about 10% of the time. So players take advantage of that.  It happens and happens, then someone gets hurt(Methot) and everyone yells and screams. And in that case, since it was Crosby, they scream loud. If they called it all the time, players wouldn't do it.  But GOD no, we want to let the players decide the game.

 

Punch, elbow, butt end someone in the head, give them the face wash and eye gouge?  Its okay, that's just "Trying to get under their skin" or "Trying to get them off their game" or "Playing them tough".  Right up until the player doesn't get up.  Then "Well it was just a hockey play gone bad".

 

2)  Are we biased because we are Pens fans and we think Crosby is abused more? Probably, but that's also because he's on the team we follow, and we see it game in and game every year.   Its not the grinder that people abuse, why bother, they're not going to hurt you.  Teams WANT to go after the stars, because they know you can get away with a lot, and if they retaliate, they you can probably get some matching minors as the officials then try to "manage" the game, and so they get what they want anyway. Oh yeah, and then you hear the classic "Well they got under his skin and he lost his composure there".  

 

 I've told my kids I'm glad I didn't play at this level, I'd hurt someone.  If you hit me constantly in the head, I'm going to hit back, and as I learned early in life, I'm going to hit a lot harder so that you think twice about it the next time.

 

But if you're going to say that Crosby, or any star player, doesn't get more abuse in the playoffs, well you're dead wrong. 

 

3) Protecting star players doesn't have to mean a different set of rules, the rules are already in place.  If you see a player hitting someone in the head, PENALIZE THE OFFENDER. it's that simple.   The is no need to turn your head like you didn't see it.   If a player comes into the scrum to go right after another player, PENALIZE THE OFFENDER.   Don't stand there as an official and not call something  because you don't want to affect the game, because by NOT calling something you are affecting the game.   The  whole "It's playoff hockey" mentality is the worst mantra ever.  A penalty is a penalty is a penalty, just because its the playoffs doesn't mean that the rules change. 

 

 

Are we as Pens fans sensitive about this.  Yes, we are.   We've seen so many concussions over the past five years its not funny.  Most of them had not even a penalty called let alone further recourse from the league.   All we here is it was "Just a hockey play", or "Karma!". Whatever.  Do our players do stupid things? Yes. Do I like it when they do? No. 

 

I don't want special treatment, I just want the officials to enforce the rules, period. If they did that, we'd never have to have this conversation again. 

 

 

 

 

 

[hf101]

34 minutes ago, nossagog said:

I don't want special treatment, I just want the officials to enforce the rules, period. If they did that, we'd never have to have this conversation again.

 

This  

 

And This.  

Quote

3) Protecting star players doesn't have to mean a different set of rules, the rules are already in place.  If you see a player hitting someone in the head, PENALIZE THE OFFENDER. it's that simple.   The is no need to turn your head like you didn't see it.   If a player comes into the scrum to go right after another player, PENALIZE THE OFFENDER.   Don't stand there as an official and not call something  because you don't want to affect the game, because by NOT calling something you are affecting the game.   The  whole "It's playoff hockey" mentality is the worst mantra ever.  A penalty is a penalty is a penalty, just because its the playoffs doesn't mean that the rules change.

3

 

Nice post Noss,  Agree 100%.

 

 

[B21]

3 hours ago, hf101 said:

 

Rutherford didn't specifically say different rules, but his statements make for an easy interpretation of his comments.   He made the comparative statement to basketball for star players.  Well, the rules in the two games are exactly opposite.  In hockey, one can check a player with the puck and in basketball, you can't touch the player with the ball.  Obviously, since the two games are completely different and to be more like basketball, hockey would need rule changes.  He's the one that said he wants more protection for star players.  

 

 

Wait. Are you seriously arguing that because Rutherford compared hockey (a game where there is loads of contact) to basketball (where contact is minimal) that Rutherford is advocating for no contact but only for his star players? That is what you took from that? Good God, man. Feed the agenda much? I have no idea how the NBA protects their star players. However they do, Rutherford clearly thinks they do a better job of it than the NHL. But again - you (shockingly) take that as him asking for special treatment/different rules. I mean...wow. 

 

3 hours ago, hf101 said:

 

It is hockey, and it has been it is all a part of hockey and the Stanley Cup playoffs for a long time.   We hear all the time let them play, let them decide the game on the ice.   Refs keep the whistles in your pocket.    There is more hacking, slashing, interference and roughing than in the regular season,  but it happens to everyone on the ice, not just to the stars.  The Media may just write about the stars, but the extra stuff will be there until the refs call it.  If the game needs to be called tighter than it currently is why doesn't he just say that?  Why instead make comparative statements to basketball, or suggest that teams will need to bring back enforcers to protect players? 

 

 

Agree on all. Also not what Rutherford is talking about. He clearly references targeting of specific players. "Letting" them play and burying the whistles is one thing. He's talking about intentionally going after a (star) player. Totally different than what you are trying to infer was his intention. Also something that enforcers are "supposed" to prevent right? No one would dare elbow Crosby in the head for fear of a beat down from Steve McKenzie. That's worked out well.

 

Pretty clear you though you saw a chance to dump on Rutherford and the Pens and now are getting called out for it. They way you are twisting this basketball analogy is proof enough of that.

[B21]

3 hours ago, nossagog said:

1) I'll say it, you're right HF, and Rutherford is wrong. There shouldn't be a different set of rules.  The current rules need to be enforced as they are stated in the rules.  It goes straight down the line for all calls that are in the book.  None of these conversations would happen if they did.  

 

 

Except Rutherford doesn't even say that. Doesn't even allude to it. Doesn't ask for special treatment.  Doesn't mention a special set of rules. Doesn't seem to be too worked up over your run-of-the mill non-calls.  What he is taking issue with is teams (i.e. - the Senators) getting away with specifically targeting star plays with the cheap stuff. He's 1,000% right about it.  It happens alot. Especially in the playoffs. Clearly it happened to Crosby against the Senators. Pierre Turgeon. Paul Kariya. Eric Lindros. Mario Lemieux. Can't beat em? Then beat em. It's a farce and it costs careers. 

[nossagog]

15 minutes ago, B21 said:

 

Except Rutherford doesn't even say that. Doesn't even allude to it. Doesn't ask for special treatment.  Doesn't mention a special set of rules. Doesn't seem to be too worked up over your run-of-the mill non-calls.  What he is taking issue with is teams (i.e. - the Senators) getting away with specifically targeting star plays with the cheap stuff. He's 1,000% right about it.  It happens alot. Especially in the playoffs. Clearly it happened to Crosby against the Senators. Pierre Turgeon. Paul Kariya. Eric Lindros. Mario Lemieux. Can't beat em? Then beat em. It's a farce and it costs careers. 

I know B,  Heck, when you have both Keith Jones AND Mike Milbury, both serial  Pens haters,  astounded by the lack of calls, you know that the league is missing something.   Like I said,  all I want is to see the rules enforced.   

[B21]

7 minutes ago, nossagog said:

I know B,  Heck, when you have both Keith Jones AND Mike Milbury, both serial  Pens haters,  astounded by the lack of calls, you know that the league is missing something.   Like I said,  all I want is to see the rules enforced.   

 

I agree.  I just don't think that is the point Rutherford was trying to make. He's specifically talking about the targeting of Crosby with things that go way beyond what is simply a 2:00 minor the got missed. Heck, the TSN headline for this article was "Rutherford not happy with targeting of Crosby" (or something of the sort). I take real issue with the inference that this is Rutherford asking for special treatment for his players - a second set of rules should apply for his stars.  That is just utter b-crap.

[hf101]

1 hour ago, B21 said:

Wait. Are you seriously arguing that because Rutherford compared hockey (a game where there is loads of contact) to basketball (where contact is minimal) that Rutherford is advocating for no contact but only for his star players? That is what you took from that? Good God, man. Feed the agenda much? I have no idea how the NBA protects their star players. However they do, Rutherford clearly thinks they do a better job of it than the NHL. But again - you (shockingly) take that as him asking for special treatment/different rules. I mean...wow. 

 

 

It does appear that way, which (shockingly) is why I started the topic.

 

What does this statement mean to you then by Rutherford?  “The league has got to fix it,”  To me, that means asking for change of some type.

 

So what is it that he wants fixed?  he says it in his next statement...   “In other leagues, they protect star players."

 

In other words, Rutherford is asking for the league to fix a problem, as he is stating that Star Players are being abused and need to be protected.

 

 

[flyerrod]

4 hours ago, nossagog said:

3) Protecting star players doesn't have to mean a different set of rules, the rules are already in place.  If you see a player hitting someone in the head, PENALIZE THE OFFENDER. it's that simple.   The is no need to turn your head like you didn't see it.   If a player comes into the scrum to go right after another player, PENALIZE THE OFFENDER.   Don't stand there as an official and not call something  because you don't want to affect the game, because by NOT calling something you are affecting the game.   The  whole "It's playoff hockey" mentality is the worst mantra ever.  A penalty is a penalty is a penalty, just because its the playoffs doesn't mean that the rules change. 

Agree wholeheartedly. It is probably my biggest pet peeve with officiating. Do your effin' job as a ref and the crap will stop. Period. However, I don't want players to start exaggerating(hamming) to get calls either. Those players, if they are not caught during the game can easily be fined/suspended after the fact and should be. To me, that is the kind of thing that makes soccer an unwatchable game.

[B21]

34 minutes ago, hf101 said:

 

It does appear that way, which (shockingly) is why I started the topic.

 

What does this statement mean to you then by Rutherford?  “The league has got to fix it,”  To me, that means asking for change of some type.

 

So what is it that he wants fixed?  he says it in his next statement...   “In other leagues, they protect star players."

 

In other words, Rutherford is asking for the league to fix a problem, as he is stating that Star Players are being abused and need to be protected.

 

 

Here is the difference. You see Rutherford saying all players are "abused" equally and that the "abuse" of the stars needs to be policed differently (a big reach to go from his quotes to that).

 

I see Rutherford saying the "stars" get "abused" more and that the league needs to do something about that.

 

I see Rutherford saying this less than a week after the Sens abused (no quotes) Crosby to the point where multiple articles were written about it (not to mention Milbury of all people acknowledging it). Kinda lends credence to the latter of the above points, no?

 

You simply see someone affiliated with the Penguins "complaining" about this and instantly think "whiner". "Sickening". "Ploy". "Deserves untouchable treatment."  You're literally taking that from what Rutherford said.

 

So again...wow.