0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I'm saying that unless you have clear evidence of nhl referees exhibiting bias due to race, you're spitballing, and it doesn't look good on you.
Quote from: Frycer14 on April 14, 2019, 09:52:21 AMI'm saying that unless you have clear evidence of nhl referees exhibiting bias due to race, you're spitballing, and it doesn't look good on you.I appreciate that the topic has made you uncomfortable. I’m slightly amused that this is what it takes for you to actually require substantiation for an internet opinion being posted.
Quote from: herman on April 14, 2019, 12:22:07 PMQuote from: Frycer14 on April 14, 2019, 09:52:21 AMI'm saying that unless you have clear evidence of nhl referees exhibiting bias due to race, you're spitballing, and it doesn't look good on you.I appreciate that the topic has made you uncomfortable. I’m slightly amused that this is what it takes for you to actually require substantiation for an internet opinion being posted. You're amused that your implication of racism requires a higher standard of substantiation than, I don't know, an opinion on Matthews' compete level? You're on your own, pal.
...Refs have a hit list they circulate, which is a list of players they especially focus on in games. I don’t know who is on the list, but Kadri most assuredly is. And confirmation bias is a thing. They believe he’s a bad egg and therefore everything he does is seen through that self-confirming lens. All people have biases, implicit or explicit, consciously or not. It comes out in the decisions they make. A racial bias stemming from systematic ideaologies is written into everyone’s mental fabric whether we like it or not. I have to catch myself and correct those thoughts and feelings when they come up, and I definitely still screw up from time to time. ....
Quote from: Frycer14 on April 14, 2019, 09:52:21 AMI'm saying that unless you have clear evidence of nhl referees exhibiting bias due to race, you're spitballing, and it doesn't look good on you.I appreciate that the topic has made you uncomfortable. I’m slightly amused that this is what it takes for you to actually require substantiation for an internet opinion being posted. Here’s how it works out in my head:One player is the son of a former player and current broadcaster. I think we can agree that hockey is Nepotistic to the Nth degree. Hockey has a preference for the type of player it promotes and the type of player it castigates. See Hrudey’s interesting segment comparing Nylander (soft Swedish lazy super skill) and DeBrusk (son of his broadcasting colleague, absolutely not dirty according to himself).Refs have a hit list they circulate, which is a list of players they especially focus on in games. I don’t know who is on the list, but Kadri most assuredly is. And confirmation bias is a thing. They believe he’s a bad egg and therefore everything he does is seen through that self-confirming lens. All people have biases, implicit or explicit, consciously or not. It comes out in the decisions they make. A racial bias stemming from systematic ideaologies is written into everyone’s mental fabric whether we like it or not. I have to catch myself and correct those thoughts and feelings when they come up, and I definitely still screw up from time to time. Refs are people. They have documented biases. Is that what’s happening here? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Who is going to get the benefit of the doubt on the ice and in the media?In my mind, being a referee is hard and thankless and I generally try to understand their perspective. This was the first game where I felt inclined to sound off on them.
I guess it's on me for not phrasing it clearly. I'm not saying the referees are collectively racist.If you'll allow me to wax poetic once more:What I am saying is that there is a propensity for people/players of colour to not receive the benefit of the doubt in a given situation. See 5K fine for Marchand's retaliatory crosscheck to MacDonald's head while he was prone on the ice. If the situation were reversed, what are the odds it'll be played off as DeBrusk heroically jumps to the aid of his elderly teammate and Kadri's a faker?Kadri does himself no favours by letting his emotions get the better of his decision making. Why does it always seem to get to this stage whenever the refs selectively 'put away their whistles'?Is this an uncomfortable topic? Sure, feel free to disagree.
Herman the German, how did we miss this?
herman, I'm always glad to discuss uncomfortable topics; it's how I learn to be empathetic. I just think you're wrong on this one.I'm not sure if you're not explaining clearly or if I'm just not understanding. What point are you making with Marchand's 5K fine? He's had multiple suspensions before, so DOPS isn't shy to suspend him. If there's any bias, it's probably because he's now a superstar player.For Kadri, I'm 100% convinced it's due to his attitude and past history.
FWIW: https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/02/sports/basketball/02refs.html
I wonder if we can have this broken off into a separate thread? I think it's a conversation worth continuing. Unconcious bias, and not just racism, is becoming an important topic in so many areas. In a large organization that I'm part of, understanding and addressing it is one of our strategic priorities.It would be interesting to see how this bias applies to the NHL, where 100% of the referees are white (I believe) and 93% of the players are white (as of 2011).