Sunday, February 16, 2014

Statement Analysis: Jonathan Quick

If a goal is moved, the puck crossing it is not considered scoring, but is disallowed.  If a player moves the goal from its mooring intentionally, he is called for a penalty.  Note the unusual journalism.   
Note the quotes.  

Here is the question for readers:    Did Jonathan Quick move the goal?

If you want to look at the video, do so, or the articles everywhere online...

But in the end, intentionally or unintentionally, did he move it?  

Perhaps you wish to come to an opinion based only upon the words?  

Here is the video:  NET

Sochi — Russia blasted American referee Brad Meier Saturday for disallowing a goal that would have given them a lead late in their Olympic Games hockey clash they eventually lost to the USA in a shootout.
"The referee made a mistake," said Russian coach Zinetula Bilyaletdinov following the Russians 3-2 loss to the Americans in a preliminary round contest.
"Of course, it would have been more effective to have a different judge."
T.J. Oshie scored four times in the shootout after a roller-coaster contest in front of a raucous crowd of 11,678 at the Bolshoi Ice Dome.
Russian superstar Alex Ovechkin insisted the goal should have counted and said that USA goaltender Jonathan Quick deserved a penalty for intentionally dislodging it.
NOTE:  see the reporting.  The article claims that Alex Ovechkin blamed quick.  Yet here is the quote:  
"It was definitely a goal. The goalie touched the net so that the net moved," Ovechkin said. "The referee had to see it. He should have given him two minutes."
He blamed the goalie.  
With the score tied 2-2, the Russians appeared to have scored the go-ahead goal with just under five minutes left in the third on a shot from the point by Fyodor Tyutin.
But Meier and his Swedish counterpart Marcus Vinnerborg disallowed the goal, apparently because the net had come off its base.
Bilyaletdinov said it is disappointing to have a call like this go against them on their home soil in the Winter Olympics.
"If this is a mistake of the referee there are people that will find it. It is very sad the referee didn't count it," he said.
Asked about whether there should be more neutral referees in the tournament, Bilyaletdinov said, "We don't appoint the referees, a board of referees appoints them, so we can only take the situation as a given."
Quick denied moving the net and said one of the Russian players might have done it.
"I didn't even know I did it," Quick said. "I don't know if it happened before the goal went in or after because a guy skated through the crease after the goal and I don't know if he bumped it."
Later, the International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF) backed the officials' decision.
"Upon reviewing the goal, the net had clearly been displaced prior to the puck going into the net," said an IIHF statement.
"The IIHF referee supervisor Konstantin Komissarov confirmed that the ruling made by referees Brad Meier and Markus Vinnerborg was the correct call and that the proper procedure had been followed with regards to the video review."

19 comments:

Dee said...

"I didn't even know I did it," Quick said

Enough said. Quick dislodged the net, whether intentional or not. It stinks for the Russian team but the ref made the right call as per the rules.

Dee said...

I should add, it was the right call because it wasn't obvious to the official it was intentional.

elf said...

He touched the net. He knew he touched the net.

Shelley said...








Peter, wanted to see if you found any of this SA worthy...

Eyes for lies blog talked about a video on you tube with Misty Croslin speaking.

The video is 7 minutes. I did the best to transcribe. There were a couple areas I could not tell what she said and most the time it is just Misty talking. Only 2 times in the whole video do you hear the question by the interviewer. There were also a lot of breaks and I noted where those were.

Below except where I noted “***Interviewer asks” it was only Misty speaking
It is long so will have to put in a couple of posts.



I just feel like I need to you know, I need to speak my mind.
Theres nothing new.
I just wanna get my side out there cause everyones against me its seems like and (unable to hear a couple words at this point) that’s not what is should be like
Im here, prison over some stuff that I shouldn’t even be here for. It just seems like people are forgetting about her. Obviously the police aren’t doing anything. So I just feel like…. They aren’t doing anything.
Um…
We put Hailey on the bus, yah know, we did everything we were supposed to do. Ronald brought Hailey home. I cooked dinner. I gave her a bath. We played. Then we layed down and went to sleep. And then I woke up…out of…..I don’t know why I woke up, I woke up and the kitchen light was on and I ran to the bathroom… I ran to the kitchen to see what was going on, I thought maybe Ron was home.. he wasn’t there. So I went to my room to get my cell phone to call him, he wouldn’t answer his phone over 20 times, turn around and shes not in her bed so I’m running around the house freaking out cause shes not in her bed, shes not no where in the house and then 5 minutes later ron was pulling down the drive way and he just didn’t really look like he was upset, he just looked like he was more messed up on drugs…. And…when I called him the 20 or 30 times I called him, he didn’t answer the phone and then the police come.

It has nothing to do with me. I think they were trying to get back at Ronald who ever did this.
If….
See what I was told, that Ronald sold drugs a lot when he was…. before we got together and he owed people money.
See one day we were at this bar, he… it was this family owned bar and I was sitting in the truck, we got out of the truck and I started to walk up to Ronald and this black man was talking to him and Rons like I need you to go sit back in the truck and I said why, why can’t I hear. And the black man said that he knows where Hailey is, the Mexicans have her and if Ronald pays this much money back then he can get her on Friday. And that was a lot…long time ago.

I don’t know who woulda took her, I don’t understand why they woulda took her (interesting she just told us that it was cause Ron owned money and the Mexican had her so now she doesn’t know who or why?). It just doesn’t make sense to me.

I guess I could talk about the abuse that Ronald gave to us. Um… All of us, me Hailey and Jr went through abuse with him. He was always messed up on pills. Um…he used to beat us.. all the time. If the kids…. if the kids would get in trouble and I would tell them to stop… like he smacked his son in the face and I got mad at him and said don’t do it and (sounds like she said he started bleeding) he laughed about it and I got beat up for it cause I stuck up for the kids. All the time.
Yah know , I had them kids 24/7. I took care of them kids. I gave them baths, took them to school, fed them, done everything with them.
Their family didn’t do anything.

Shelley said...

Part two....





And they are out here putting blame on someone they shouldn’t be putting blame on.
When all I tried to do was be a mother figure to them kids cause they didn’t have a mother.
And I just…. It hurts me to walk around here every day and… just knowing that the police even think that…

Funest little girl you could be with… she was so sweet. I just loved being with her.

Yah know we used to do… go play together, ride 4 wheelers, do all kinda stuff together. Homework, she helped me cook. Just all kinda stuff that she done.
(first time we hear the person taping ask a question)
***Interviewer asks: Do you miss her?
Hailey: A lot (she then nods yes). A really lot.

That carrys with me every day.. that I was the last one that seen her. I walk around most the time crying cause it (unable to understand) on my mind.
And it just hurts because Ronald should know me better than any of them people, even his family, that I care about his kids. I would do anything for them. I’d give my life for Hailey to come home right now.

It’s been hard. It’s been real hard. But I have to keep myself strong cause Im not gonna give up. Regardless. I am gonna fight this. And Im gonna fight to find Hailey. Regardless, I am never gonna give up on her. And that’s the only reason I am bring strong right now is for her.

I am never gonna give up the hope and faith until they can show me, I am never gonna believe she is dead

They told me in court that if I could just tell them something, they would let me go. But theres nothing I can tell them. If I knew something, they woulda knew it from day one. I care about that little girl more than anyone knows.

I mean I had an ok childhood I guess you can say, but it wasn’t the best. Mom and dad did try to provide for us, but they were strung out on drugs and alcoholics..

We were living in (unable to understand) county. Then, that’s where I got raped and that’s when I stopped going to school. Yah know, I felt ashamed cause I couldn’t get up and read in front of the class, I felt ashamed because I didn’t know half the stuff the kids knew. Because my family didn’t sit with me, work with me… they were too worried about drugs.

The only that that I even did when I got with Ron was smoke Marajuana. That’s the only thing, the only kind drugs I ever did. He introduced me to the pills… So I thought I was doing better then when I found out he was doing the pills and everything, I just like… its the same as when I was at home. And I tried to leave so many times, but couldn’t.
***Interviewer asks: Why couldn’t you?
Misty: Cause the kids

I just want, yah know people to see, that I am not what people put me out there to because I’m not, I’m not this bad person that people think I am. Im not.
I made mistakes in my life and now Im paying my consequences for it.
But doesn’t mean Im a bad person

They can keep believing what they wanna believe cause one day the truth will come out and of course, that there gonna, people are gonna talk regardless and don’t hurt my feelings if they talk anymore. Im so used to people talking, saying you did this, you did this… but then cause I know and god knows that I didn’t do anything wrong.
So as long as I know, that’s all that matters

Shelley said...

As a note, it was stated the phone records showed 20 unanswered calls were made by Ron TO Misty. That was according to actual phone records.

Yet here Misty states she called Ron like 20 times and he didn't answer. She can not even keep known facts straight.

Anonymous said...

Ovechkin didn't mention that it was his goalie, friend, or teammate (distancing). This is a trend for Ovechkin. He likely gave this interview at practice while gliding through his defensive zone doing zero backchecking as usual.

Hobnob said...

off topic

MEMPHIS, Tenn. – Memphis police have confirmed that a body discovered in a ditch this weekend is that of a 7-week-old baby who went missing more than five weeks ago, and the infant's mother has been charged with first-degree murder.

Memphis police said Monday that the physical description and clothing on the body discovered Sunday in Millington, about a half-hour north of Memphis, matched that of Aniston Walker, who was reported missing Jan. 9.

The baby's mother, Andrea Walker, told police that Aniston disappeared after she left the baby at home with her 3-year-old child while taking her 5-year-old child to school.

Walker earlier pleaded not guilty to charges of aggravated child abuse or neglect and had been free on $250,000 bond.

Police said Walker turned herself in Monday afternoon


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/02/17/police-baby-body-found-outside-memphis-is-that-missing-infant-mom-charged-with/

Theresa said...

It doesn't appear that he did anything intentionally to cause the net to come off the mooring. I take his statement to mean that he didn't realize he did anything to cause the net to move, intentionally or otherwise. I don't think he did anything wrong. The nets are lighter in the Olympics than in NHL, and they don't seem to use the same Marsh pegs that NHL does (correct me if I'm wrong), so it isn't surprising that in rapid play like that, it came off the peg.

Anonymous said...

OT: EVIDENCE MOUNTS AGAINST PIERS MORGAN IN PHONE HACKING INVESTIGATION - February 17, 2014.

On Friday it was revealed that the CNN host and former editor of the Daily Mirror newspaper, Piers Morgan, had been interviewed under caution by police investigating phone hacking. Officers from Operation Golding will have wanted to talk to Morgan about his now infamous claim that “I have never hacked a phone, told anyone to hack a phone, or published any stories based on the hacking of a phone.”
That categorical denial looks increasingly implausible when you look a the volume of evidence against him. Before the phone hacking scandal blew up in 2011, Morgan had – somewhat foolishly on his part – repeatedly explained in detail how voicemail intercepts were commonplace among London newspapers.
Regarding a story about Paul McCartney and Heather Mills the Mirror ran while he was editor, Morgan admitted, “At one stage I was played a tape of a message Paul had left for Heather on her mobile phone.” When asked under oath during the Leveson Inquiry into press ethics how his paper had obtained the message, he refused to answer.
In his 2009 diaries Morgan described how he broke the story of an affair involving England football manager Sven-Goran Eriksson: “It was the Daily Mirror, under my editorship, which exposed Sven’s fling with Ulrika Jonsson after learning of a similar message left by the then England manager on her phone.” And it was in his diaries that Morgan confessed his knowledge of how to hack phones: “If you don’t change the standard security code that every phone comes with, then anyone can call your number and, if you don’t answer, tap in the standard four digit code to hear all your messages.”
Writing in GQ magazine, Morgan again explained the method and played down the the consequences: “Reporters could ring your mobile, tap in a standard factory setting number and hear your messages. That is not, to me, as serious as planting a bug in someone’s house.” He may have not thought it serious then, but the crime of intercepting voicemail communications carries a possible two-year prison sentence.

Anonymous said...

OT: continued...

If the evidence from Morgan’s own mouth is enough to raise considerable suspicion, the testimony of his peers is even more damning. Morgan was editor of the Mirror from 1995 to 2004, and it was during his tenure that former Mirror journalist James Hipwell alleged, “Many of the Daily Mirror’s stories would come from hacking into a celebrity’s voicemail… I used to see it going on around me all the time when I worked at the Mirror.”
The BBC journalist Jeremy Paxman recalls how at a lunch in 2002, “Mr. Morgan was teasing Ulrika that he knew what had happened in a conversation between her and Sven-Goran Eriksson… He turned to me and said, 'Have you got a mobile phone?' "I said 'Yes,' and he asked if there was a security setting on the message bit of it. I didn't know what he was talking about.”
In December, giving evidence at the hacking trial of former newspaper editors Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson, legal adviser Ambi Sitham alleged that Morgan once boasted to Brooks, “I know what your splash is because I've been listening to your messages." Brooks replied, "Been hacking into my phone again have you, Piers?"
Morgan was also singled out for heavy criticism by the judge in charge of the Leveson Inquiry, Lord Justice Brian Leveson. Commenting on his evidence, Leveson concluded that “Mr. Morgan chose his words very carefully when asked to speak about the Daily Mirror.” Of one of Morgan’s replies to a question on hacking, Leveson warned, “This was not, in any sense at all, a convincing answer,” and summing up his testimony overall, described it as “utterly unpersuasive.”
So far the hacking trial has focused primarily on activity at the News of the World newspaper, though evidence at the Brooks-Coulson trial has also implicated Mirror Group newspapers in alleged criminality. Operation Golding, the investigation into behaviour at Mirror Group newspapers, is far less advanced than the Operation Weeting investigation into News of the World, and is still in the process of collecting evidence.
However, one Sunday Mirror journalist has already pleaded guilty to phone hacking. It may not be long before CNN are forced to make a difficult decision about the employment of their star host.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2014/02/16/The-evidence-against-Piers-Morgan?utm_source=contentsharing&utm_medium=linkexchange&utm_term=postion5&utm_content=The-evidence-against-Piers-Morgan&utm_campaign=foxnews

C5H11ONO said...

"I didn't even know I did it," Quick said

If he saw a video of what happened and saw that he had in indeed touched it, could he have then stated the above? He is admitting he did it, except not knowingly. Would it be the words of deception?

Fig Roll said...

Hi Peter,

Statement Analysis in the Bible: 1 Kings 13 v 11-34.

Off topic is something you might be interested in. My wife was reading from 1 Kings 13 v 11-34, The Disobedient Prophet" Verse 18 includes a statement from another prophet who we know lies. I'd be interested to see what you think of the statement and had the prophet who was being lied to known about Statement Analysis at the time, he might have avoided an unnecessary death. What do you think?

C5H11ONO said...

Fig Roll:
“I too am a prophet, as you are. And an angel said to me by the word of the Lord: ‘Bring him back with you to your house so that he may eat bread and drink water.’” (But he was lying to him.)

When a sentence starts with And, there is usually missing information. He should have asked the old prophet more questions.

Fig Roll said...

C5H11ONO:

I Kings 13 v 18 From the New American Standard Bible.

"I also am a prophet like you and an angel spoke to me by the word of the lord saying, "Bring him back with you to your house, that he may eat bread and drink water." but he lied.

Thank you for your reply. I've had another look at it. In the NASB version, "and" is part of the same sentence and is a "connecting" word in the above version. when i look at the whole verse i initially look at order, the first thing said is, "I also am a prophet like you" there are extra and unnecessary words which give more information and can be taken out without changing the context of the message. i feel that the person is trying to convince (make someone believe him) as opposed to convey the truth. he tries to draw a comparison "I also am a prophet like you" why does he have to say he is a prophet and he adds "like" (not the same as) you. this is followed by, "and an angel "spoke" (spoke is soft language and is out of context here, I would expect to see the word "told") to me by the word of the Lord (again unnecessary words unless he is trying to convince. extra words weaken the statement) "saying" (again, a soft word as opposed to "telling" which would be more appropriate) with "saying" there is a change in tense. In an open statement, a person should speak in the past tense, here he switches to present tense (saying not said) showing a lack of commitment to the statement and indicating deception. "bring him back with you (with shows distance i.e. I went shopping with my wife, meaning i wasn't so keen to go") to your house that he may eat bread and drink water" (that is distancing language and is also an explainer in this context which is sensitive as there is the need to explain why he has to bring him back to his house)

i agree, the prophet should have asked more questions or in the context of the story in the bible either prayed to God or stuck fast to what he was instructed to do. for me, the statement has got "deceptive" written all over it and had he understood statement analysis at the time, it could have saved his life (he gets killed by a lion in the end)

i appreciate your response. Im not sure if Peter checks in on old posts. I'd like to get his expert thoughts on this. Do you think it's worth cutting and pasting our comments onto a more recent topic?

Statement Analysis - can save your from a Lion Mauling!

C5H11ONO said...

Wow Fig Roll! You tore the statement to shreds! Awesome work!

Peter has posted in the past that Avinoam Sapir, the father of Statement Analysis is writing a book regarding SA of the bible. Since he is from Israel, I gather it would be the Old Testament. That would make for a great read.

Fig Roll said...

C5H11ONO:-

Thank you for your comments. I re read the passage in a couple of accounts and a couple start the sentence with "And" The initial version I read had it mid sentence but you are absolutely right. i love this blog. I'm from the UK. It's a shame Statement analysis does;t have the same prominence over here as it does in other areas of the world. i think we're missing a trick. i'm glad we can all learn from and encourage each other on this blog.

Fig Roll said...

C5H11ONO:

Thank you for your comments. I read the passage in a couple of other versions and a couple of them had "and" starting a new sentence. you are absolutely right. it's surprising how just slight changes can make a difference. I'm from the UK. Its a shame that Statement analysis does;t get the same prominence here as it does around the world. I think we're missing a trick as there's so much potential. I enjoy this blog. It's great we can all share with and encourage each other. i'd be interested in reading the book by Avinoam Sapir, if it was the old testament, it would make a fascinating read.

Lemon said...

"I didn't even know I did it," Quick said.

He frames the words "I did it".