|
Post by clmetsfan on Oct 25, 2023 14:07:26 GMT -5
The sub-free experience at Holy Cross may be different for alum who matriculated at different times. My theory as to why it was so bad when I was there was because at the time you also had the First Year Program option, where all participants were housed in Hanselman. FYP was not sub-free but, in addition to the seminar-style academic program, had a reputation of being a little bit dorkier and a little bit less of a party scene than Mulledy and Wheeler. So the type of person who isn't totally against drinking but also would want to ease into the college party scene would be more likely to have chosen this option as opposed to sub-free. I was four years ahead of you, but this was pretty much the exact same experience that I had.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Oct 25, 2023 14:03:08 GMT -5
Might not seem like a big deal, but strictly speaking providing alcohol to a minor is a crime. Furthermore, this crime resulted in the minor needing medical treatment. Not a stretch to think police could be involvedNow-a-days, lots of schools have get out of jail free card when you seek medical attention for someone who was doing something wrong A week after the fact, when no other laws were broken, in the second largest city in New England? Enough of a stretch that it didn't scare me, an 18-year-old freshman who'd never been in any real trouble in his life, in the slightest.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Oct 25, 2023 9:54:55 GMT -5
Logistically awkward for freshmen at HC. I think freshmen are assigned dorms based on their montserrat concentration choice. At least that was the original plan in the montserrat roll out. Part of the program was community. If that is still the case, unless the substance free freshmen all want the same montserrat concentration something has to give. As of about 15 years ago, at schools other than HC, there was a percentage of kids who signed up for substance free housing to please/fool their parents and then went ahead and drank anyway. I would guess there is still some of that. No clue if that percentage is shrinking or growing. I signed up for the "substance free" floor in Mulledy my freshman year on the advice of my older brother, who assured me that his sub-free experience at Middlebury merely meant that there were no parties on the floor, but he and his roommate and other friends on the floor still went to parties and partook in the festivities. My experience was far different. There were maybe one or two other guys on the floor who, like me, still wanted to go to parties and drink but just wanted assurances that they wouldn't have to worry about loud parties next door when they wanted to sleep. Made for a lousy freshman year, if I'm being honest, and I couldn't wait to get out of sub-free after freshman year. It also made for a fun HC disciplinary experience the one night when a friend and I returned drunk (he ended up having to get his stomach pumped) and were subsequently threatened with getting kicked out of the dorm unless we ratted out the people who supplied the alcohol at the party we went to. We called their bluff, including when they threatened to get the police involved. I have to admit that it was hard to keep a straight face during that last part, as the thought of calling the Worcester PD to investigate two freshmen who drank too much a week ago is a legitimately funny "threat" to make.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Oct 5, 2023 11:43:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Oct 2, 2023 15:07:24 GMT -5
Yeah, I find it pretty far-fetched that you're genuinely happy that people are getting value out of something that you clearly wish didn't exist (since you made a point of telling us that you're withholding support as long as it does). In other words, you're genuinely glad that they get something out of it, but you'd be much gladder if they couldn't? No, that doesn't make any logical sense to me. On the other hand, casually saying you're happy for someone even though you're not so that you don't come off like a jerk? That makes perfect sense. that's a cynical view and representative of a complete intolerance for different opinions. so you aren't happy for your friends who are fans of a team you dislike when that team wins a championship? you don't want that team to win, but you are happy for your friends. more relevant to you given your strongly partisan political posting history on crossports, supporters of a politician who you don't like? maybe you don't. it wouldn't surprise me given today's climate. but not everyone is wired that way.
personally, i detested the yankees but was happy for my friends who were yankees fans when they won. similarly, i think an overt display of sexual preference in lab coats is off-putting but i am happy for those who find this brings them joy. i would absolutely prefer that the focus be on excellence in chemistry, but that is not where we are. at this point, i couldn't care less about the opinion of those who shout diversity and tolerance for superficial characteristics from the rooftops but cast aspersions, character assaults, and general judgment of anyone who disagrees with them. zero tolerance for diversity of ideas. so go ahead and continue with this type of thinly veiled criticism. it's simply boring and predictable at this point. No, of course I'm not happy for my Yankee fan friends when that f---ing team wins. What a question. I wouldn't have called you out for what I see as hypocrisy if your comment was "I don't understand the value, but I'm glad other people get it." But you specifically made a point to say (completely unprompted) that you are no longer donating money to the school because of things like that. So no, I don't believe you when say that you're happy that it benefits people. To accuse me of being the one that's intolerant of different opinions after announcing that you're withholding support for the school over your own difference of opinions is pretty funny though.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Oct 2, 2023 12:09:59 GMT -5
Doesn't sound at all like you're genuinely glad that it resonates with people. it sounds like it's sadly a foreign concept to some, but one can indeed be genuinely glad for others while personally disappointed. is this really that hard to understand? Yeah, I find it pretty far-fetched that you're genuinely happy that people are getting value out of something that you clearly wish didn't exist (since you made a point of telling us that you're withholding support as long as it does). In other words, you're genuinely glad that they get something out of it, but you'd be much gladder if they couldn't? No, that doesn't make any logical sense to me. On the other hand, casually saying you're happy for someone even though you're not so that you don't come off like a jerk? That makes perfect sense.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Oct 1, 2023 10:40:07 GMT -5
i'm glad i had professors herrick, mcmaster, vandoren, and others who focused exclusively on actually teaching chemistry and not all of this extraneous stuff. while some may view dancing, discussing vulnerability (whatever that means), and drawing attention to race/sexual orientation/other superficial characteristics to be good value for their tuition and important to their scientific careers, suffice to say not everybody will feel that way. i'm genuinely glad that this resonates with some, but it is yet another reason why i stopped donating my money to holy cross outside of the athletics department.Doesn't sound at all like you're genuinely glad that it resonates with people.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Jun 2, 2023 7:53:05 GMT -5
Anyone else feel this thread has gotten a bit bizarre? Given the thread title, I'd say it started off that way.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Jun 2, 2023 5:03:53 GMT -5
1) This would NEVER have been approved it was flamboyant men/things/pick-your-pronouns walking around with A) skull caps, fake noses, white scarves, B) sexified hijabs or other headscarves, or C) traditional African tribal garb. There is a false equivalency between bad things the Church has done and them not being able to claim injustice of their own. 2) This is one of the fundamental flaws, and fears of early observers of democracies and their ability to function and succeed: that people wouldn't have a common, shared interest in a productive outcome that benefits many (a baseball game), but instead would just live in their isolated and ignorant hole, hating those who have a voice and have success until THEY become "king for a day." I can understand the sentiment that many in "majority" groups might feel threatened. It's about equality in many instances, but it seems like revenge in many others. Somebody marginalized a gay person or transvestite 50 years ago before I was alive? Great... NOW you're gonna see all forty of the people in the county who feel that way shut down the main roads and parade along. How do you feel about THAT?! Actually, you can't answer, because if you don't agree-- even though you weren't out with pitch forks and torches going on the offensive-- you are a bigot. There is no counter viewpoint acceptable. The 2% of the weirdos are driving the most powerful organizations, institutions, and businesses in the country. Not dialogue, not votes, not dollars. It's out of control. A) Referring to trans people as "things" is pretty gross of you, Rob. I'd say it's not very Christian of you, but unfortunately that isn't the case. This whole thread, in fact, is a perfect encapsulation of the famous Gandhi quote: "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." Please do better. B) "I can understand the sentiment that many in "majority" groups might feel threatened. It's about equality in many instances, but it seems like revenge in many others." You mean like when people who are anything but oppressed pretend that they're the target of hate so that they can justify their institutional bigotry? I wonder how many Yankee fans will feel ostracized by having to look at a rainbow flag the next time they sing along to God Bless America in the 7th inning stretch.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Jun 2, 2023 4:56:00 GMT -5
Why would Asexuals need to join any advocacy group? Nobody is threatening them. Why not just join the Shakers? As of 2022 only two Shakers remained in Sabathday Lake, Maine. Why do you care?
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on May 25, 2023 12:20:33 GMT -5
Do you really think our 'practicing Catholic' president is in charge at the White House ? (I would hope he would have objected to this person being in his admin) Saw this item today: Sam Brinton — the embattled former Biden administration official charged with multiple airport thefts — previously led the Washington, D.C., chapter of the anti-Catholic group invited to a "Pride Night" hosted by the LA Dodgers. Brinton was the D.C. Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence's principal officer from its founding in 2016 until 2018, according to tax filings reviewed by Fox News Digital. The group is part of the San Francisco-based Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, a drag queen group that regularly mocks the Catholic Church and made headlines after it was uninvited then re-invited to the upcoming Dodgers Pride Night. "When we are asked, ‘Why are you mocking nuns?’ we answer: ‘We are nuns!’ We do all that traditional nuns have done for centuries," the D.C. Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence website states. Well for starters, I have trouble holding the President of the United States at fault for not being fully up to speed about what the deputy assistant secretary of Spent Fuel and Waste Disposition in the Office of Nuclear Energy does in their spare time. And on the off-chance that he is, I would hope that he has other things to worry about than taking offense at every perceived slight. I think the four years we already of had that was enough, no?
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on May 25, 2023 11:20:16 GMT -5
Honestly, maybe I'm short-sighted but I don't see the connection between a bunch of Trans people parading around, mocking nuns and the Church pedophilia scandal. I think the parade w/ the parody would have been held if there was no scandal, no? Leave the nuns alone! Look at it this way -- people who are trying to demonize drag shows (including some in this thread) do so on the basis that they're immoral sexual deviants who are a threat to children. I've yet to see any evidence to back that up, but there's a whole lot to show that Catholic priests are a much bigger threat. Personally, I'd greatly prefer my nieces and nephews to be alone with a drag queen than a priest. Also because Rubio's and others' perpetual quest for victimhood is what kicked this off, so it's fair to point out their own failings. Here's a senator from a state that's banning books at a rate we haven't seen since the days of McCarthyism, yet he's decided to devote his energy to complaining about some imagined slight by a baseball team 3,000 miles away. Put another way: maybe people wouldn't be so quick to mock the Church if it actually lived up the standards to which it holds others.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Apr 28, 2023 16:14:02 GMT -5
We have a SantaCon in NYC which sounds a bit like SatanCon but I suspect a whole lot drunker. Or at least more jolly Oh man, jolly is the last word I'd use to describe the absolute hell on Earth that is SantaCon.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Feb 2, 2023 10:36:41 GMT -5
And the Mets formally retired his number this year at their renewed old timers game. Willie was not in attendance, but his son was Mays is arguably the best all around baseball player ever. That being said I wouldn't be retiring the number of a .240 hitter with 14 home runs. Kind of like Hank Aaron, they brought a legend to the town he started his career in as a gimmick even if the player was a shadow of his former self. Mays had a fine career as a New York Giant, not so much as a New York Met. And yes, I have the same opinion about the Brewers retiring Aaron's number. At Fenway #42 is retired for Jackie Robinson. Unlike the Red Sox numbers, it's done in Dodger Blue. Maybe the Mets (and Brewers) could do something like that Ordinarily I'd agree, but in Mays's case, the number retirement was the fulfillment of a promise that had been made to him back in '72 when he was acquired by the Mets. I'd rather have a somewhat questionable number retirement than a needless lie to the greatest player who ever lived.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Feb 1, 2023 10:31:39 GMT -5
Of course the evidence is overwhelming, but I think the fact that other teams were and almost certainly still are doing it too -- I don't think anyone is using electronic means to steal signs anymore. MLB is monitoring video rooms since the Astros. Nothing wrong with stealing signs if you don't use electronic equipment. Just be ready to take the penalty I mean, the Red Sox continued to do it in 2018 even after being caught the previous season. Assuming that everything is now on the up-and-up would require ignoring the fact that teams have been coming up with schemes like this for over a century. I see no reason to assume that's not still the case.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Jan 31, 2023 18:04:29 GMT -5
The list of 103 players who tested positive in 2003 (when results were supposed to be anonymous) came to light because in 2009 an MLB staffer or vendor somehow leaked the fact that Alex Rodriguez was among those that tested positive that year. Of course, Alex went on air and admitted to having taken PEDs. Of course, the world then wanted to know who else tested positive that year? And the list was released. It has never been considered official, not because of alleged inaccuracy of information but because of the legality of officially releasing the information since we're dealing with a major labor union that agreed to testing on specific terms (i.e. an anonymous trial year to start). So any article you see on the internet will reference the list as "the rumored list of players" because it likely will never be officially released. It also appears that the union has over the years made some efforts to have the internet scrubbed of "the list", which will become less and less of a priority since everyone on it has by now retired. If I were a sportswriter with a HOF ballot, I would handle the steroid issue like this -- if you were suspended for violating MLB drug policy once testing officially began in 2004, you're not getting my vote. So that rules out Palmeiro, Manny Ramirez, Alex Rodriguez and Robinson Cano (Cano not HOF material anyway IMO). I'm voting for all the others that haven't gotten in already -- Sosa, McGwire, Bonds, Clemens. I'd have voted for both Pedro and Ortiz if they weren't in already. While I don't view Beltran as a Hall of Famer regardless (he belongs in the Hall of Very Good), I actually think I would forgive the 2019 Astros. I'd vote for Altuve if he indeed puts up the 2nd half of a HOF career. Forgive the Astros ? 1- Why ? the evidence is overwhelming.. They cheated up to and including the World Series.. 2- Have any even apologized, never mind asked for forgiveness ? Of course the evidence is overwhelming, but I think the fact that other teams were and almost certainly still are doing it too -- because it's baseball and people are always trying to steal signs -- plays a big factor in how big of a deal it is. As for apologizing, I remember the owner saying something and Altuve and Bregman reading prepared statements. The only apology that I've seen that's worth a damn came from George Springer: "I feel horrible for our sport, our game, you know, our fans, our city, our organization — just fans in general. I regret everything." On the whole though, I see sign stealing as a much different animal than steroids on the cheating spectrum. Steroid usage creates a greater competitive imbalance because players are forced to choose between taking banned (sometimes completely illegal by US law as well) and potentially dangerous substances in order to keep up with the cheaters, and I don't think it's fair to make someone have to choose between their health and their job. Sign stealing not only has a long history in the game, but there are only some areas of it that are actually illegal, i.e. using camera equipment the way the Astros were. So you can't use a camera, but if it's a runner on second base seeing the pitch signs and signaling to the batter, that's ok. I don't have a problem with that distinction, but it's not a purely black and white issue, especially considering how many other teams do it. So while the Astros definitely cheated and definitely should have been punished more harshly than they were, is it really such a big deal that a worthy player who participated should be kept out of the Hall of Fame? I don't think so. But if you do, how do you feel about Gaylord Perry being in the Hall? or Whitey Ford, who wore his wedding ring when he pitched so that he could cut the ball with it? Don Sutton was once suspended for cutting the ball too. What about anyone who corks their bat? Here's a good one -- the 1951 Giants had an elaborate system with a telescope and buzzer in the bullpen to do exactly what the Astros did, which undoubtedly helped them erase the Dodgers' huge lead and led to Bobby Thompson's Shot Heard Round the World in the one-game playoff. Should that have affected Willie Mays's candidacy?
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Jan 31, 2023 13:00:52 GMT -5
You have changed my mind on Beltran. Huzzah! But credit goes to Jayson Stark
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Jan 31, 2023 11:40:32 GMT -5
I am going to push back, ever so gently, on Pedro as steroid user. I know he is on "the list" but if you poke around the internet (as I did over the weekend) there are not a lot of people willing to consider him a steroid user. All of the articles about Ortiz discuss his presence on the list, but Pedro isn't treated the same way. I have always assumed that the list was mostly correct, but have wondered if a few people were wrongfully named. The list of 103 players who tested positive in 2003 (when results were supposed to be anonymous) came to light because in 2009 an MLB staffer or vendor somehow leaked the fact that Alex Rodriguez was among those that tested positive that year. Of course, Alex went on air and admitted to having taken PEDs. Of course, the world then wanted to know who else tested positive that year? And the list was released. It has never been considered official, not because of alleged inaccuracy of information but because of the legality of officially releasing the information since we're dealing with a major labor union that agreed to testing on specific terms (i.e. an anonymous trial year to start). So any article you see on the internet will reference the list as "the rumored list of players" because it likely will never be officially released. It also appears that the union has over the years made some efforts to have the internet scrubbed of "the list", which will become less and less of a priority since everyone on it has by now retired. If I were a sportswriter with a HOF ballot, I would handle the steroid issue like this -- if you were suspended for violating MLB drug policy once testing officially began in 2004, you're not getting my vote. So that rules out Palmeiro, Manny Ramirez, Alex Rodriguez and Robinson Cano (Cano not HOF material anyway IMO). I'm voting for all the others that haven't gotten in already -- Sosa, McGwire, Bonds, Clemens. I'd have voted for both Pedro and Ortiz if they weren't in already. While I don't view Beltran as a Hall of Famer regardless (he belongs in the Hall of Very Good), I actually think I would forgive the 2019 Astros. I'd vote for Altuve if he indeed puts up the 2nd half of a HOF career. I liked your analysis (I wouldn't vote for Sosa or McGwire, but your logic is sound) until you got to the Beltran part at the end. I see him as pretty close to a slam dunk HOFer. Jayson Stark summed it up very well (the third bullet point is the most compelling argument if you ask me):
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Jan 30, 2023 15:16:30 GMT -5
I did not know that. KInd of reminds me of Palmiero and his jump about the time he teamed up with Canseco. I look at those guys worse. Bonds and Clemens could have been a HoF'ers without the juice. The juice brought it to an unprecedented levels of things like 700 HR or 7 Cy Youngs, but they were superstars. Palmiero was a good player by no 3000/500 guy without the juice. No I'm lumping Kent in with him There were never any substantiated rumors surrounding Kent. Nor was he on the leaked list of 103 players who tested positive in 2003. So presumably, he was not juicing even a year ahead of the MLB drug testing program. Anyone not voting for Kent because of suspicion of steroid use would be treating him completely unfairly. I think the fact that he played in a ridiculously offensive era makes his numbers seem slightly less impressive, his glove was below average and he had the whole "first ballot" stigma going against him. I think he gets in soon. Agreed, Kent should not be assumed to be a juicer just because of a jump in production in the middle of his career.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Jan 26, 2023 17:32:13 GMT -5
Kent should be in. Hopefully next ballot. Should it matter that he was a second baseman when he never won a Gold Glove? If not, I think he gets compared to hitters with no consideration that he was a better hitter than other second baseman. His line is .290/.356/.500/.855. OPS+ is 123 He hit 377 home runs in 17 years with 9537 plate appearances. Has 55.4 for WAR Is he better than Dwight Evans who is not in the Hall? His line is 272/.370/470/.840 with OPS+ of 127 and 385 home runs in 20 years. 10569 plate appearances---and 8 Gold Gloves. Has a WAR of 67.2. Kent basically played 2B because he didn't have the arm for 3B or the range for SS. I'm of the belief that the Giants would have happily moved Kent to first if they didn't already have a Gold Glover there (JT Snow) for Kent's entire tenure in SF. Had he been on an AL team, he'd almost certainly have been a full-time DH and would be judged very differently.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Jan 26, 2023 17:25:45 GMT -5
To address the two players this thread primarily focused on: 1. Beltran-there is a large segment of voters that believe in it being a special honor to be voted in your first year of eligibility and accordingly withold votes based on not being "first ballot worthy" but being "hall worthy"...I think even without the cheating scandal, Beltran would have fallen victim to this. Other writers have publicly said that they would withhold a vote on him a year or two as "punishment" for the scandal, but would ultimately vote for him. I think getting 44% in his first year on the ballot, when he is not "first ballot worthy" and the cheating scandal is fresher in writer's heads is a strong indication that he will ultimately get in before his 10 years are up;2. Rolen-I don't think he is a hall of famer, and I would not have voted for him...but at the same rate I do not think his election is that egregious that it upsets me. This makes sense -- but why "only a year or two of punishment" for the blatant cheating scandal versus "not voting for steroid users (unless their name is David Ortiz or Pedro Martinez) ever"? No logic. And the whole "not first ballot" thing has been going on for decades. I would be willing to bet Jeff Kent jumps next year. Can't remember if he was on the 'roids list or not, though. I don't recall any rumors around Kent, nor was there a marked change in his body along the way ala Bonds and Sosa, but there is a very interesting jump in his offensive production in 1998, his second year as Bonds's teammate. He had been a very consistent above-average-but-not-great hitter every year prior to that, with an OPS+ ranging from 101 to 111 in his first six years in the league, before jumping to 142, 125, 162, 131, 147, and 119 in his next six years. I don't think that jump should affect his candidacy in anyway, but it does raise an eyebrow or two. As for the jump next year, this was his 10th and final time on the writers ballot. It'll be interesting to see if the new Players Committee pushes his candidacy forward in the coming years.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Jan 25, 2023 18:01:23 GMT -5
The Hall of Fame feels more fluky if clear-cut, phenomenal players like Bonds, Clemens, Arod, Manny, and a few others are being withheld the honor because of steroids-- either proven, or allegations. Others have a bit more stink on them and are in or will be in (Ortiz). If we have to wring our hands in anguish and try to invent and dissect every stat, park factor, era-adjusted number to justify putting someone in, it seems to water the whole thing down. Ruth is a no-brainer. Mays is a no-brainer. Griffey Jr. is a no-brainer. There are other no-brainers. Those are who I think the Hall should be made up of. Those legendary, or generational, fearsome, awesome talents should be worthy of plaques and monuments. You can also add those with historical achievements, or the season/career records. Someone like Jim Abbott who pitched a no-hitter with one hand? Incredible stuff. I feel like all the people that we try to "squeeze" in will start to have this tiered feel to the Hall of those that are the true greats, and those that just accumulated votes because of the ancillary numbers. Rolen was really good... maybe even great. But he was often hurt, averaging only in the 110s for games played per season across his career. Did I fear him, was he must-watch on TV, did he rack up World Series due to his prowess? Not so much. I think subjectivity should apply. It's probably why writers bestow the honor. Otherwise, make it an objective metric: get to N number of WAR, and you get in. Case closed. Here's the thing though. These kinds of debates is exactly the point of having a Hall of Fame. If it's an objective number then it takes all the fun out of it and no one would care. As to the historical achievements part, there are numerous examples throughout the museum of great moments like Abbott's no-hitter.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Jan 25, 2023 17:53:43 GMT -5
I disagree with the Mazeroski comparison. Rolen was a very solid player at bat, with a .364 OBP and .490 slugging average. That equates to a 122 OPS+. I know Maz's OBP without even looking it up because it's an atrocious .299 among the very lowest in the HOF and his .367 slugging average combines with it to generate a very weak OPS+ of 84. Rolen as a strong asset on offense, Mazeroski a liability. Beat me to it. Rolen was an offensive force for nearly 15 years. Not good enough to get in if he wasn't also an all-time defensive player, but still a really good and consistent hitter. Mazeroski, on other hand, was equally consistent in being a bad offensive player. Not only does he have the awful OPS+ of 84 as you said, but never had a single season a 100 OPS+, i.e. he was never even an average hitter. In all honestly, he probably never gets in if he doesn't hit the most unlikely walk-off in history.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Jan 3, 2023 16:58:16 GMT -5
Most of what I've read and heard about the incident itself indicates that it's a case of commotio cordis, which is essentially cardiac arrest as a result of a severe blow to the chest. It's what happened to Chris Pronger back in the 1998 NHL playoffs when he took a slapshot to the chest. I don't think it's commotio cordis. The tackle Hamlin made looked to be a pretty routine one without a ton of force -- much different than Chris Pronger who had a 100 mile per hour hockey puck strike him. There are only 30 or so reported cases of commotio cordis each year, and many of them happen to teenagers whose musculature is not fully developed. My guess is that Hamlin most likely had subclinical myocarditis and the spike in adrenaline when making this tackle triggered the catastrophic event. A number of cardiologists would disagree. The impact of the force doesn't have to be like what Pronger experienced. From the Philadelphia Inquirer: And the Detroit News:
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Jan 3, 2023 16:27:35 GMT -5
Truly horrifying to watch that last night, and despite their denials, it seems that in the moment, the NFL made the mind-numbingly callous decision to tell teams that they had 5 minutes to prepare to resume play after the ambulance left the field. Just when you think that league can't sink any lower, they manage to tunnel down a bit more. Good for the coaches to recognize that their players were in absolutely no condition to resume play, and took matters into their own hands by pulling the teams off the field.
Most of what I've read and heard about the incident itself indicates that it's a case of commotio cordis, which is essentially cardiac arrest as a result of a severe blow to the chest. It's what happened to Chris Pronger back in the 1998 NHL playoffs when he took a slapshot to the chest. Based on that, plus the fact that CPR was administered pretty quickly after he went down, one can hope that Hamlin will survive the episode, hopefully with minimal to no long-term effects from the disruption of blood and oxygen flow.
|
|