james

@james_xond Yes. But left a job to start my own business after 11 years. So close to 10

Trying to prove a point: Has anyone else ever stayed at a job for more than 10 years?

@Bloke_Baz Exactly. Being in management a few years ago, I remember the owner of the company praising someone for staying late - in itself being valued. But he was the slowest and least knowledgeable worker. The guy who left at 5p was of quality, thorough, and fast. no prais3 from ownership

The longer I work in corporate, the more I realize People get rewarded for being Visible, not Valuable

@IAmLA40 Note: From now own, stand at the center of the escalator, especially with kids. Yikes.

The brushes on sides of escalators are not there to clean your shoes

@jaredadairbell As pertaining to the perfection of his human nature and the unity of his privileges, yes. As progressing into his divine nature, no.

@james_commentor Followers of Christ will reign with Christ and inherit His rewards. Sounds a lot like followers of Christ become like God.

Allie asks a question to Jacob. Jacob answers. Jacob asks a question to Allie. Allie dodges.

@Canes absolutely loved it!

It was only right that Hallsy scored 💪

@ChiefStaios @NikitaBlyatsev While I don't agree, even if if Hall didn't let up, he at least was checking a player with clear puck possession.

@james_commentor @NikitaBlyatsev Hall did not let up at all

this hit still blows my mind🔥what a bomb

@sensPVO @hangingcable2 @ForsbergsHat @PierreVLeBrun Agreed. The thing is - I actually don't mind the hit itself. It was full body, good, hard hockey check. In that sense, it wasn't dirty at all. But the timing just sucked and resulted in checking a really vulnerable player.

@james_commentor @hangingcable2 @ForsbergsHat @PierreVLeBrun Ya I think thats completely true. It was a decisive choice to throw that hit- at that point in the series. I think that used to be very common but not as much today. Personally hate seeing head injuries, we know the consequences long term now. I hope this stuff is on the way out

There was some chatter about what Greig did in both Tampa and Montreal rooms this morning. Let’s just say some players in both rooms very much thought that was completely wrong and crossing the line.

@sensPVO @hangingcable2 @ForsbergsHat @PierreVLeBrun Thanks for the good chat. Beyond the rule and the ruling, based on Klevin's own admission after the game, he saw an opportunity to retaliate for Hall's hit on Sanderson and took it. I think he had opportunity to play the puck instead. But such is the nature of playoff hockey

@james_commentor @hangingcable2 @ForsbergsHat @PierreVLeBrun Fair enough, again I truly hope he’s back and fully healthy for the next round. Great player with a high ceiling - excited to see him to continue to develop.

@sensPVO @hangingcable2 @ForsbergsHat @PierreVLeBrun Good point re: the league's view. From my perspective his stick was pocked and he whiffed on the puck. But I'll agree it's debatable.

@james_commentor @hangingcable2 @ForsbergsHat @PierreVLeBrun I’ve watched it quite alot and personally it looks to me like the blade of his stick absolutely comes into contact briefly with the puck right before Amadio takes it. Should that make him eligible in such a vulnerable spot? Idk. I’m assuming the league has better views as well

@sensPVO @hangingcable2 @ForsbergsHat @PierreVLeBrun I'll leave it here: 1) It's debatably a late check if Nikihin had technical possession of the puck 2) It's debatable if he ever had possession of the puck 3) Therefore, it's not *clearly* a legal hit regardless of the league's ruling or injury. Could've ruled interference.

@sensPVO @hangingcable2 @ForsbergsHat @PierreVLeBrun By that standard, in the situation where the puck is tied up on the boards and two or three players are fighting for possession, well, then just come in and lay a hard check on someone to clear the puck. Then see how they call it. The puck would be at the feet of the player, no?

@NikitaBlyatsev @ChiefStaios Because it's debatably a late check if Nikishin even had possession of the puck, which is also debatable. Kleven implied his intent was to retaliate. Hall's intent was to remove Sanderson's possession of the puck, and you can tell he even tried to let up. They are different.

@ChiefStaios Exclusively through the body and yet I have NPCs calling this worse than the Hall hit.

@sensPVO @hangingcable2 @ForsbergsHat @PierreVLeBrun If Nikishin touched the puck and that qualifies as possession - it feels really close to a late hit. But that's where the league made it's call - fine. It's not late by rule. My point is they are wrong that Nikishin even had possession. He didn't touch the puck.

@sensPVO @hangingcable2 @ForsbergsHat @PierreVLeBrun Well, we're not debating whether or not the league determined it legal. We're debating if the league got it wrong. I'm saying watch the replay closer. His stick is poked and he whiffs on the puck. Ottawa takes possession, not Nikishin. At best, it *should* have been interference

@sensPVO @hangingcable2 @ForsbergsHat @PierreVLeBrun Also, "immediately following possession" That's also debatable - even if Nikishin did touch the puck (I don't see that he did, or that he touched it in any meaningful way to take possession) the hit was border line "not immediate" Meaning - it's not "textbook" a clean hit

@sensPVO @hangingcable2 @ForsbergsHat @PierreVLeBrun I don't see he touched the puck. I've watched it multiple times. And of course, the refs can be wrong Also, "touch the puck" has been interpreted into various layers including control / carry. So what does "touch the puck" mean? as it was debated in the Staal offsides in game 2

@sensPVO @hangingcable2 @ForsbergsHat @PierreVLeBrun again, you said, the rule that defines possession is "within his radius" or "attempt at the puck" Where is that in the rule book?

@sensPVO @hangingcable2 @ForsbergsHat @PierreVLeBrun Lastly, the resulting injury is irrelevant to the rule. My issue, and no one is even talking about this, is that the interreference led to a 3-on-1 for Ottawa. It took a defensemen unfairly out of the play.

@sensPVO @hangingcable2 @ForsbergsHat @PierreVLeBrun By your standard, two or three players could be attempting to gain puck possession when the puck is tied up on the boards (occurs often ) and an opposing player would be legally able to run through a check to free up the puck. That would be absurd. No, it would be intereference