Fearless Opinion: Head Shots
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 8:16 AM PST
in Rants
246 comments
Continuing on with trying to entertain Canucks fans during the long layoff, I've decided to think outside the Nucks box.
I have to try to contain my anger when the head shot issue is continually brought up on mainstream hockey shows and websites, and I have to try to contain it now. What follows is solely my opinion and I don't care if people disagree with me or not. In fact I welcome the conversation.
I have no shame in admitting that I am a fan of old school hockey. Head shots are not a new phenomenon in the NHL and beyond. It has been going on for years, as Mike Milbury pointed out on CBC's Satellite Hotstove last Saturday night. He is correct. Watch a Scott Stevens hit highlight reel as one example and you can see that also. In the old days, and very rarely today, players would take a head shot and scramble in 10 different directions trying to get to the bench because they got their bell rung. That was the "manly" thing to do. I've always respected that. Nowadays, with all the concussion issues, precautionary procedures by team doctors (stretchers and the like) and change of protective gear (which I'll get more into later), players get smoked and lay on the ice motionless, whether because they are knocked out cold, or are playing it safe.
While I still think the elbowing/charging rules are good ones, I don't want the NHL to change the rules now involving shoulder shots to the head. In a game filled with fast and size-able players, hits in all forms can happen in an instant. I don't want this cloud of fear hanging over aggressive player's heads that they cannot hit someone for fear that they might make contact with the opposing player's head and thus be disciplined for it. I have so many reasons for feeling this way.
-It's f**king hockey! I love hits! Clean hits! Shoulder-to-the-head included, if that comes to pass.
-The various heights of players. Guys like Chris Pronger or Zdeno Chara decking a shorter player (or, like Scott Stevens smoking Paul Kariya for example) are going to lead to a head shot based on that. So these guys need to change their game now to avoid it? Give me a break. The OHL is always "leading the way" with potential new NHL rules, but you can hear the sentiments of Mike Kelly, then coach of the Mississauga Ice Dog's opinion of bigger players hitting less in this clip. "Then that 6'4" defenceman has to avoid the check" he says. I don't think so!
-Whatever happened to players being responsible for their own actions? If you want to cut in the middle with the puck over the opposing team's blue line you're asking for it. If you want to dish a pass and admire it by turning your head, you're asking for it. If you want to bend over and poke at the puck when an opposing player is coming at you, you're asking for it. Like Don Cherry said recently, players have to be aware of who is on the ice for the opposing team at all times.
Allow me to be a little bit random by showing some clips.
1. Mike Richards tags David Booth
A. Cutting in the middle
B. Admiring his pass
2. Doug Weight wacks Brandon Sutter
A. Reaching for the puck with Weight coming at him.
B. Weight may have been trying to make a shoulder-to-shoulder blow but it was too late to react after Sutter leans forward. How is the NHL going to ban head shots when this kind of thing happens? Video review to decipher whether or not the hit was clean? Or does he get a game misconduct immediately? The latter is horse shit.
3. Michael Liambas crushes Ben Fanelli (OHL)
Liambas is suspended for the entire season.
A. Fanelli shouldn't be turning his back there. Not along the boards like that. Hate to see him hurt that badly though. B. Can the NHL/OHL or whoever put some more slack in the boards/glass? It was like Fanelli hit a brick wall. No give in that glass. I see his helmet popped off too.
So, randomness and disturbing images aside, I stand by my point. I don't think head shots should be eliminated. What I think should be changed is:
1. Player awareness on the ice. Who's out there for the opposing team? Don't cut in the middle. Don't admire your passes. Don't turn your back along the boards when an opposing player is coming at you.
2. Every arena should have more flexible glass. Remember how it was in the Forum in Los Angeles? Yeah, just like that.
3. Here is a real biggy that Don Cherry alluded to years ago, and I still think holds true to today:
Get rid of the hard plastic elbow/shoulder pads.
I see that I represent a minority on this issue. I don't care. That's kind of a bogus poll in the wording of it. Like I said before, it does change how a player who is over 6'4" plays his game. He should not be subjected to that.
The intensity and physicality of the game will be somewhat compromised. Great players like Mike Richards will have their game suffer as a result. It's a game of seconds or less when it comes to hits. Head shots happen, whether intentionally or not and whether the League tries to stop it or not.
I'd get into the instigator rule and players "policing" this kind of thing, but I don't need to. I'm old school. Figure it out.
I could go on about this all day. Opinions?
1 recs |
246 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Only read the first part of the thread but
I thnk the key is whether the head is targetted or not, IMO, there is NO ROOM for targetting someone’s head, if it’s incidental because of a last minute reach for the puck or something that’s one thing, but you can ring somebody’s bell without contacting the head.
To me # 1 and I’ve said this for years, they need to get rid of anything hard in the shoulder part of the shoulder pads, they can be thick heavy material for cushioning, they do not need to be armour that does far more harm than good. This I think will help solve the problem in a number of ways, first contact with the head will be with a cushioned effect like a boxers glove instead of being made worse by the blunt blow of an unforgiving hard surface. Second, the lack of “armour” will not only make hitters feel less invulnerable, it will make them a little more likely to injure themselves, not just the hittee and therefore they will ease up some when making contact.
Hitting should be about taking the man first, “doing damage” second, and to me todays shoulder pads are used as weapons, not as protection.
by yoata on Nov 19, 2009 10:54 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Once again I find myself agreeing with yoata. The shoulder pads there days are ridiculous. Weapons is a good way of describing it.
The other thing I would say is that any hit that is shoulder not elbow, that sees the player still on his feet (in other words he hasn’t jumped at the guy) and where the recipient of the hit isn’t in a vulnerable position is clean. Whether that hit is to the head or not. I played with a couple of guys on my team growing up where every hit was a hit to their heads cause they were little. They still say to this day, tough luck for me. It isn’t a head shot unless it is a deliberate attempt to injure someone by targeting their head. Willie Mitchell on Toews for instance. Clean. Bure on that poor guy from Dallas? Not clean. We need to get rid of ANY hit that occurs on a guy who is vulnerable. Now obviously we won’t get rid of all of them. But maybe we need to try and then we will get rid of most of those hits?
by Section 312 on Nov 19, 2009 1:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I’ve had a similar conversation with a friend about Football VS Rugby. Those shoulder pads are made to hurt others, and also protect the wearer a little.
by SteveNux on Nov 19, 2009 5:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Damn you, Sean, I was all ready to argue but … I agree with every blessed word you wrote! Can you do an update or something and get it wrong next time?
On the wording of the poll, agreed. It should read “deliberate head shots”. I think that’s the key, too, to the debate: heads will roll (haha, eh) on occasion as a byproduct of good hockey. What most people want eliminated is the deliberate targeting of the head, such as by throwing a superfluous elbow in addition to a perfectly legal check.
I’ve said before, when I play (even vicariously thru the Canucks) I want to hurt you, I want to make you feel pain … but just till the game is over, buddy. Bumps and bruises afterwards are also par for the course, nice little forget-me-nots. What I don’t wanna do is make you retire when your career is over to a quiet, dark room where you sob to yourself in pain as your facilities crumble. Nor do I wanna encourage the kids who, imitate the pros, to do that to their peers.
But we mustn’t throw out the good, too, the rough, clean hockey. The NHL, with its troubled franchises and some of its trends and its refusal to expand into hockey-mad markets … are we gonna see another WHA? Don’t laugh. If they dumb the game down enough and keep those ticket prices high during a recession and keep moving more and more games to PPV … hmm, looks like an opportunity to me. Long way from here to there, for sure, but you never know.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 19, 2009 11:06 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
first contact with the head will be with a cushioned effect like a boxers glove instead of being made worse by the blunt blow of an unforgiving hard surface.
Absolutely. I like your point about the “lack of armor” potentially hurting the hitter as well, therefore the possible easing up on ferociousness.
As far as targeting someone’s head: sometimes it’s unintentional that it ends up being the head that gets smoked. Are they going to penalize a guy for that? I’ve seen it happen (Mike Brown) where he gets an automatic game misconduct for smoking Jiri Hudler (who was admiring his own pass). That is not right.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 11:12 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
FWIW, I remember an old student-teacher game when I was a student. One prof was adamant that we have no shoulder pads on either team. His theory was that it only encouraged excessive hitting – which was fair, given the ages of the teams – and I think he was right. Guys w/out shoulder pads instinctively make sure not to pop a shoulder out.
Game went fine that way. I think it’d be overkill for the NHL, for sure – I mean, we students were younger and fitter by a wide margin, so I could see the profs’ concerns – but it made a point.
If you ever get a chance to read the book Traffic" – it’s about traffic, as in cars on the roads – one theme that recurs is that the safer the road “feels” the more the drivers increase their risky behavior. Too much gear can be like that, too.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 19, 2009 11:24 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Admiring his own pass
is irrelevant, by all means crank the guy, just do not deliverately target the head, again, incidental contact with the head is unavoidable, but going for the head is fcuked up and should not be tolerated, that is not a hockey play, it is intent to injure, period.
by yoata on Nov 19, 2009 12:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
@casual, my response is down here because the fucking page won’t fully load and the reply function won’t work because of that. Sure, a deliberate hit the head…solely the head. A lot of these hits are head-body contact combos, with no elbow included. Fine by me. Love those. Like I said, I like the elbowing major penalties. But I hear too often on TV those fucker analyzing the shit out of every hit where a guy is laid out unconscious on the ice. It’s grating my nerves. With most of these hits the headshot issue is front and center (listen to the first 2 vid clips above.). How about: that was a clean hit! Wow! But no..they scrutinize the fuck out of everything all the time. That’s why I like Milbury and Cherry. Old school can be good school, IMO.
See? I’m still fucking angry.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 11:20 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
OK, join me and we’ll start WHA/2 together. Don’t get mad get even!
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 19, 2009 11:25 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Solely isn't
the defining factor either, to me it’s pretty easy to tell most times whether the head contact was deliberate or not, but if it is, it should be penalized and harshly, if not, it shouldn’t, those are ref/disciplinary decisions which should be left to those highly paid experts, but imo that should be the determining factor, obvious head targetting or not.
by yoata on Nov 19, 2009 12:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
the safer the road "feels" the more the drivers increase their risky behavior. Too much gear can be like that, too.
You know, I had that concept in my post but then deleted it because I didn’t like how I worded it. I like your analogy though. Great stuff.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 11:49 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Thx. Back to hockey, then, what we want is helmets that don’t feel safer, we want ones that feel flimsy and useless, that remind you, just by being on your head, that you are not safe … but that are in fact much safer than what we have today. The effect there would be to encourage you to protect your head and to be aware of its vulnerability at all times, even as it protected you better than ever when you do get hit.
I think this’d be doubly true for kids, who already have a tendency to see themselves as invulnerable. Give them equipment that makes them feel like an armored warrior and they’ll be more likely to, say, boldly go into the corner with their heads down. Give them equipment that leaves them feeling vulnerable, and they’ll more often keep their heads up, which is much better.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 19, 2009 11:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Sure. And that’s kind of what Yoata was hinting at above as well. Of course, it will be a cold day in hell before they ever take a step backwards with protective gear. It’s the nature of the stupid human beast.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 12:03 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Betcha a softer shoulder pad that made the players’ shoulders look wider and more manly – ladies dig shoulders, they’re the part of the male anatomy that womens’ eyes actually spend the most time on – could catch on cuz it’d help in marketing. Sex sells!
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 19, 2009 12:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
@Section 312:
any hit that is shoulder not elbow, that sees the player still on his feet (in other words he hasn’t jumped at the guy) and where the recipient of the hit isn’t in a vulnerable position is clean.
I hear ya. Now, what about the times where the guy makes himself vulnerable at the last second? For example, reaching for the puck or turning his head? You want to leave this in the refs’ hands? They won’t catch half of them. So video replay it is then? I guess that wouldn’t be the worst thing.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 1:50 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Yeah listen that’s a gray area for me. Maybe you have to be hard on those hits too just to get rid of the dirty ones? You know what I mean? Like be extra harsh on all dirty hits even the borderline ones for a while and then start to tone down on the borderline ones after a year or two while continuing to be hard on guys who make a flat out dirty hit. Like that guy in the OHL. Suspended for the rest of the year? Cause the guy he was about to hit turned at the last second? It’s a tough call.
by Section 312 on Nov 19, 2009 2:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If the player puts himself in a vulnerable position – e.g. by hunching over against the boards – such that a clean hit will also have to be a head shot, that’s the player’s own fault. If you then “crack down on those hits,” you’ll only encourage players to deliberately go vulnerable, or semi-vulnerable, in an attempt to draw a penalty.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 19, 2009 2:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah but my point is if you really want to crack down on dangerous hits when guys are vulnerable, then you might have to go hard on it for a while. Even to the point of suspending guys even if it was borderline. Just until players start to get the message then you can ease of on punishing borderline hits. Head shots is a problem at all levels of hockey. Check this story out for a perspective on junior hockey.
http://www.energeticcity.ca/fortstjohn/news/03/17/09/head-shots-editorial
by Section 312 on Nov 19, 2009 2:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Cheap shots are the problem. Incidental hits to the head in the course of a good check are not. Sounds like that league has some headhunters, but there’s no need to crack down on clean hits to deal with that; just nail the cheap shot artists.
There’d still be the “incidental concussions” but that’d be a much smaller problem, an occasional thing a.o.t. a regular occurrence.
Remember Willie Mitchell’s hit on Toews? Willie himself said his only other option – and he’s right – would have been to let Toews blow on by him for 3 on 1 against the Canucks. No way players should have to forego a clean check and run away from an oncoming puck carrier! That’s the pt at which WHA/2 becomes a reality.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 19, 2009 2:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Trudat
thing is, I’ve even heard people say “he put himself in a vulnerable position” about Bergeron when he was run through the boards from behind by that Flyer as he was going to get the puck.
That excuse should only be used when it is obvious, not anytime anybody doesn’t get out of the way and let the other guy have the puck, that’s not what hockey should be about, but it also shouldn’t be a license for guys to destroy somebody in a vulnerable position.
by yoata on Nov 19, 2009 5:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
@ yoata:
really protective gear? The shoulder pads that are like football players’?
What are they protecting players from besides the impact of their own launches into other players?
And the opposing player launching into them.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 1:52 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
There has to be a way with the technology we possess these days to make a shoulder pad that is soft enough to not take guys heads off but still able to protect a guys shoulder.
by Section 312 on Nov 19, 2009 2:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Heck, just put some padding on top of the plastic. Presto, change-o: broader shoulders, full protection, padded contact w/the other player’s head when that happens.
Might help a bit … or not? Consider this:
It’s not the collision outside the head that causes a concussion. It’s the brain inside the head rattling against the skull from the sudden change of direction. A padded shoulder pad might very modestly reduce that, but perhaps not too much.
By way of analogy, too, I’ll note that it’s been argued that boxing gloves make things worse in that sport. The padded fists enable fighters to take more blows and to fight longer, but the rattling of the brain inside the skull is relatively undiminished, therefore the concussions continue as bad or worse as before.
Dunno if that’s true – anyone ever seen a study? – but the arg seems to have merit. Would making hockey hits feel softer encourage even more of them, even as the brain inside the skull continued to bounce around in there?
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 19, 2009 2:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You only get a concussion if your brain hits your skull and bruises. And there is wiggle room up there. So I think the padding on the outside of the shoulder pad is probably enough that you would see guys woozy rather than out cold.
by Section 312 on Nov 19, 2009 2:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I’d wanna run tests. Given the concussion probs in boxing, I’m gonna say that I expect your hypothesis would be disproven.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 19, 2009 2:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Would making hockey hits feel softer encourage even more of them, even as the brain inside the skull continued to bounce around in there?
That’s why LESS padding is in order, not more. Go back to the old school padding
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 3:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly. More hits. Better. Safer hits. Better. More safer hits? Heaven.
by Section 312 on Nov 19, 2009 3:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I tend to agree, much as my wise old prof did years ago. Where you do have padding, make it feel flimsy. Use softer shells (minimal gain, but why not?). Call the deliberate targeting of the head but leave incidental contact, however crushing, alone.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 19, 2009 3:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You know, I agree with almost everything you say, Sean, except on the pads.
I’ve worn my dad’s pads from the 70’s (he still uses them), and I can say I was hurting a lot more after that. For example, his elbow pads were soft leather with foam inside them. I fell, hit my elbow on the ice and it hurt like you wouldn’t believe.
Otherwise, I concur. Headshots are part of the game, every player has been on both sides of it, and should suck it up. If you’re a smaller player, you have to be aware.
We shouldn’t punish people for being tall and/or big.
by Dr. Static on Nov 19, 2009 2:52 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Elbow pads are a completely different story
Elbows should never be contacting the head anyway so there’s no reason they shouldn’t provide the best protection posssible.
However, if they are used as weapons, they should be penalized harshly.
by yoata on Nov 19, 2009 6:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
A stray thought: Create a practice helmet where, when you take too big a hit, you get a painful prick (no jokes please) on the inside, against the skull. Nothing dangerous, maybe just some nubs lining the inside of the helmet, but something that hurts, with the pain proportional to the impact.
It would teach players just how often they are impacting their brains, and believe me that sort of knowledge would wear on them. They could better learn in practice how to avoid putting themselves in vulnerable positions. Pain is a wonderful teacher.
Or am I w-a-y off-base here? Opinions?
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 19, 2009 2:58 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
In the old days
way more players smoked cigarettes than they do these days; players took the Summer off and came to camp totally out of shape; owners treated the players like pawns and grossly underpaid and exploited them.
Times do change, don’t they? I’ve not played hockey like many of you, but I can imagine the pain and sometimes tragedy a head injury can manifest. I love seeing the Rypper constantly barrage an opponent’s face with his fists. But head injuries incurred during play, whether intended or not, should be dealt with by the league. Just like interference penalties, the players will adapt as a result of all headshots being penalized and in time the headshots will virtually disappear, just like interference penalties. Hockey players are human. Human beings adapt. It’s the 21st century, guys. The only constant in life is change. How many more concussions do we witness nowadays as opposed to the old days?
by Bobby Canuck on Nov 19, 2009 3:07 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Here’s another change:
The game is so much faster than it used too.
As such, head injuries will become more common. That Richards hit? Happened in less than a second. (Time from puck leaving the stick til the hit) No human on Earth can think that fast, and it’s apparent Richards was going for a clean, shoulder-to-shoulder hit. This stuff is bound to happen.
by Dr. Static on Nov 19, 2009 3:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Would you penalize the Mitchell hit on Toews?
Would you call a penalty anytime a player “put himself in a vulnerable position?” (Cuz if you don’t, and the other guy gets penalized for hitting them, players will deliberately go vulnerable in an attempt to draw a penalty.)
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 19, 2009 3:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree. That is what will happen, as crazy at it sounds.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 3:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Doesn’t sound crazy at all. Pro athletes will sacrifice themselves to make the play and we love that about them. That ain’t gonna change.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 19, 2009 3:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
How many more concussions? Who knows? They didn’t diagnose concussions in the old days did they? Players got up from a hit and staggered to the bench like gladiators, and probably played with headaches for extended periods of time. These new proposed rules are turning men into fucking wimps.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 3:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s more about quality of life than wimpy reputations.
by Bobby Canuck on Nov 19, 2009 3:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Then they should join gymnastics! Why are we becoming so fragile? They signed up for the job didn’t they?
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 3:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
We should ban hockey players from eating trans-fats, too.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 19, 2009 3:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m convinced, Sean, that in all pro sports in this day and age there’s an increasing emphasis on ensuring the safety of the athletes. Preventing headshots in hockey, it seems to me, goes along with this present day mandate on athletes’ optimum safety.
by Bobby Canuck on Nov 19, 2009 3:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No, I hear you on that, but I just don’t like it.
Something you said earlier:
owners treated the players like pawns and grossly underpaid and exploited them.
Yeah, and now it’s the opposite. these guys are “assets” that need to be protected. Don’t like that either.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 3:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I forgot to add:
Cuz if you don’t, and the other guy gets penalized for hitting them, players will deliberately go vulnerable in an attempt to draw a penalty or discourage the hit.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 19, 2009 3:20 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
So what you are saying is guys hitting each other is more important to you than the safety of human beings? I mean I want the game to be the same as it was 20 years ago but it isn’t and it never will be again. The guys are too big and too fast so you have to adjust the game accordingly or someone is going to die out there. I am not saying get rid of hitting I am just saying you have to be hard on guys who hit vulnerable guys even if it is borderline.
by Section 312 on Nov 19, 2009 3:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So what you are saying is guys hitting each other is more important to you than the safety of human beings?
Huh? I think your enjoyment of the soapbox perhaps overrode your comprehension of my words, there.
Same q’s for you, so that we can move past fluffy commentary – we all love humanity and baby ducks here – and onto the nbuts and bolts that matter:
1. Would you penalize the Mitchell hit on Toews?
2. Would you call a penalty anytime a player "put himself in a vulnerable position?" (Cuz if you don’t, and the other guy gets penalized for hitting them, players will deliberately go vulnerable in an attempt to draw a penalty.)
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 19, 2009 3:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think your enjoyment of the soapbox perhaps overrode your comprehension of my words, there.
Whoa whoa, easy now. Let’s keep this topic civil.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 3:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well if he wants to do a mighty j’accuse against moi by saying that “guys hitting each other is more important to you than the safety of human beings,” I think he’s putting himself in a vulnerable position, to turn a phrase.
And like I said in another thread, when the hot air starts, I love to pop those balloons. I don’t think S312 is full of hot air, not usually, but I do think more than a little slipped into that particular comment of his.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 19, 2009 3:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I know that is what you think from reading the damned Hodgson and schedule post comments. But can we just avoid that this time? I’m not just referring to you. I’m referring to all the parties involved in that arguing. I don’t feel like sifting through all that type of stuff again because I’m actively involved in this conversation.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 3:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I promise never to throw the first punch.
Never hit a man if you can walk away honorably.
And never hit soft.
—Teddy Rosevelt
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 19, 2009 3:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s too bad we all weren’t sitting around a large table talking about this, beers in hand, fights at the end. Good times!
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 3:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
A brand of beer labeled “Hockey Fight Beer” would grab instant market share!
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 19, 2009 4:08 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
That, my friend , is a rec.
I've seen enough to know that I've seen too much.
by Smoboy41 on Nov 19, 2009 8:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I must have missed that. Can we get a recap?
I've seen enough to know that I've seen too much.
by Smoboy41 on Nov 19, 2009 8:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think we have equal amounts of hot air. I mean you did make yourself look a little bad during that schedule debate.
by Section 312 on Nov 19, 2009 4:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No i already addressed this in my first post on this topic. Since you struggle with this I will block quote it for you.
Willie Mitchell on Toews for instance. Clean. Bure on that poor guy from Dallas? Not clean. We need to get rid of ANY hit that occurs on a guy who is vulnerable.
You suspend a guy for hitting a guy from behind. Longer if it was deliberate. Shorter if it wasn’t. Then you would end up with good clean hockey with hitting but players being safe too. It doesn’t seem that hard or that bad to me.
by Section 312 on Nov 19, 2009 3:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And to clarify admiring your pass isn’t vulnerable. Facing the glass is. Reaching for a puck is. Get it?
by Section 312 on Nov 19, 2009 3:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Get it?
That one, too.
(I’m trying, Sean, I’m trying!)
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 19, 2009 3:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Since you struggle with this
In deference to Sean, I’ll let that one pass and converse with others on this topic instead.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 19, 2009 3:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Can you really blame me casual? In my very first post on this thread I addressed Mitchell on Toews and then you ask me about it. What am I supposed to do there? Let that slide?
by Section 312 on Nov 19, 2009 3:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And you then contradicted that by saying that all headshots would need to be punished for a time. It’s natural to ask for an example and whther or not that applies to specific cases. I’ll ask it again further down as a straight y/n q if you wish to answer in a gentlemanly manner, my good man.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 19, 2009 4:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I said MAYBE all cheap and dangerous hits need to be punished hard for a while, even the BORDERLINE ones, not the clean ones just the borderline ones in order to clean up the game. Sometimes to change a behavior you have to over react at first to shock people out of the bad habits.
by Section 312 on Nov 19, 2009 4:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
We’re done. Sean has asked for a favor and I like Sean. Bye.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 19, 2009 4:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What? What did I say in that post that was inflamatory? I was explaining my point with emphasis on the important words to make sure I was being clear. Wasn’t trying to be condescending.
by Section 312 on Nov 19, 2009 4:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, if you guys wanna throw stones at eachother again, I won’t stop you. You’ll only isolate yourselves from the conversation with everyone else involved…..
..and I’ll get a chance to write up a Canucks-Avalanche game preview instead. Good with the bad :)
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 3:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I am not throwing stones. If the guy isn’t willing to read all of the posts before trying to make me look bad I am going to have to slap him down a little. That’s how it works. He did it earlier with me.
by Section 312 on Nov 19, 2009 4:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That’s what private messages are for. Take it outside, leave the rest of us to our civil discussion.
After you’ve hashed out your differences through your method of choice. Which would be pistols at ten paces (or pms at 10ks), I assume. Then you can come back and summarize. Sounds like a workable solution for civility.
by rsm on Nov 19, 2009 4:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Dude I am having a civil discussion I just took a guy down a peg for asking me to repeat something I already commented on. It wasn’t a head shot. Just a good clean open ice hit. NM style.
by Section 312 on Nov 19, 2009 4:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I understand the sentiments on both sides in this case. I however assumed I didn’t need the ‘tongue in cheek’ tags for this… On the other hand when Sean does ask for a cease and desist, pms are generally considered a good means of furthering the discussing/clearing up lingering resentment. YMMV of course, and I hear we do offer polar bear wrestling as an alternative dispute settlement method around here, and we live stream the settlement on PPV to defray hosting costs.
by rsm on Nov 19, 2009 4:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Polar bear wrestling? You mean, like, a night with Rosie O’Donnell?
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 19, 2009 4:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I weiagh 320 pounds so polar bear wrestling sounds like something I would be good at. If I just lie on top of someone and they can’t move do I win?
by Section 312 on Nov 19, 2009 4:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The polar bear may have something to say about that…
by rsm on Nov 19, 2009 4:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Only if she generates more PPV income than a live polar bear… maybe mud wrestling would generate more income in that case?
by rsm on Nov 19, 2009 4:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think Rosie stopped doing anything that could generate income about 3 years ago.
by Section 312 on Nov 19, 2009 4:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
She could sell brain-bleach… I’m still trying to clean my mind out.
by rsm on Nov 19, 2009 4:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Section…320? I’m 220. Whatevs. Let’s go! haha
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 5:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This has gone so wrong, so fast. ;)
I've seen enough to know that I've seen too much.
by Smoboy41 on Nov 19, 2009 8:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So what you are saying is guys hitting each other is more important to you than the safety of human beings?
YES! They wanna play hockey. They gotta suck it up and be smart out there. And I don’t agree with being hard on hitters who hit someone and it’s considered “borderline”. Like I said, it’s a game of seconds or less.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 3:34 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
By the way, I didn’t want to get into the instigator rule but now it comes into play. They should toss that rule out immediately. Teammates should defend their own. So if Mitchell tags Toews like that, a Hawks player should make him pay for it. Self-policing. It helps. Would anybody run a Wild player with Boogaard out there, or potentially going to be out there?
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 3:41 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
You might have to ditch the 3rd man in rule, too, cuz otherwise what’s to keep me from sending a stream of guys like Hordi out to fight, say, Sid Crosby every time Si’ds on the ice? Sid’s gotta defend himself, and wham, they’re both in the box.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 19, 2009 3:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ditch the third man in rule?
To quote Sean from above, “They wanna play hockey they gotta suck it up” If Sid the Kid wants to play then he might have to fight. Maybe I am in the minority but the days of line brawls and long as fights that took 10 minutes to separate and clean up after were fucking horse shit. Boring. I love a good fight. Brawls are a waste of time.
by Section 312 on Nov 19, 2009 3:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Sean, I basically agree with you on the above point, as it’s always been part of the hockey legacy that we all grew up with. But the Frankenstein’s monster of the Naslund, Moore, Bertuzzi fiasco is always there to counter that point.
by Bobby Canuck on Nov 19, 2009 3:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
How? Moore hit Naslund. Was it Matt Cooke that then fought Moore and lost? Then Bertuzzi blindsided Moore like a fool for further retribution and he paid the price for it. There’s only a handful of idiots like that in the League.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 3:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Moore being unwilling to fight during that game in Vancouver contributed as well. I was there. About 4 different Canucks challenged him. He should have dropped them. Bertuzzi just fucked up trying to make Moore pay a price. I cover a hockey team and I know for a fact that players get sent out by coaches at times to jump guys who cheap shotted someone. It happens. Crawford had more to do with it than he gets credit for, IMHO.
by Section 312 on Nov 19, 2009 3:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But that argument becomes fragile on both ends in a sense that Brad May (?) already fought Moore after Moore smoked Naslund and LOST the fight. How many more times did Moore have to pay for his infraction in the form of fighting?
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 4:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Depends how many times Crow told guys to go out there and make him pay a price.
by Section 312 on Nov 19, 2009 4:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, and that is part of the “fragile” that I was talking about. Still, Bert fucked up. He should have turned the jackass around and then hit him. ;)
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 4:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Tell me about it. I remember thinking that exact thing while watching it happen.
by Section 312 on Nov 19, 2009 4:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I counted 6 actually
and Cooke was more of a hugging match, saying that Moore took his medicine by doing that is like saying Lemieux didn’t deserve to get jumped by McCarty a second time after turlling the first to pay for what he did to Draper. Both teams knew that wasn;t going to cut it then and they did with Moore too, why else do you think he was out there late in a blowout? Why else did Bert get to chase him all over the ice without anybody interfering? You think nobody noticed that?
Difference was, Lemieux stood up and took his lumps the 2nd time, it was crystal clear Moore wasn’t going to, and as dumb as it was I can understand Bert’s frustration in not letting that cheap, dirty chickenshit get off that easy.
by yoata on Nov 19, 2009 6:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I was stating an example of self policing morphing into a tragedy. And I think there’s more than a handful of players (idiots) who would do what Bert did. It’s such a fast game and violence is not too far below the surface that it’s almost impossible to control one’s emotions and act rationally. Penalties are used to combat that loss of control and if used consistently, they will.
by Bobby Canuck on Nov 19, 2009 4:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Even in the 80’s, there was still a handful of players that would have done what Bert did. Dale Hunter for example.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 4:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry, Bobby I disagree on the “more than a handful” part. Just my opinion.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 4:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What about
what Domi did to Samuellson?
Complete sucker punch, only diffference was there was no unfortunate pile-on and subsequent unforeseen “broken neck”.
by yoata on Nov 19, 2009 6:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Now who's
taking hitting out of the game?
I don’t care too much for the instigator but at the same time, no reason a guy should have to pay for a clean hit. If he’s running around making an ass of himself that’s one thing, but Boogard should be able to punch Mitchell’s face in and not get penalized for it?
by yoata on Nov 19, 2009 6:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
OK, in as genteel a fashion as I can muster, I think the following 2 y/n q’s kinda get to the heart of the matter. So for those in favor or penalizing inadvertent shots to the head:
1. Would you penalize the Mitchell hit on Toews?
2. Would you call a penalty anytime a player “put himself in a vulnerable position?” (Cuz if you don’t, and the other guy gets penalized for hitting them, players will deliberately go vulnerable in an attempt to draw a penalty.)
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 19, 2009 4:02 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I think you will find that guys aren’t willing to risk their careers to draw a 2 minute boarding penalty. At least most of them wouldn’t. Or guys in the NHL are more willing to take one for the team than I thought.
by Section 312 on Nov 19, 2009 4:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No, boarding is a completely different ballgame, no? That would be suicide. Then again, taking a headshot to draw a penalty is not much worse.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 4:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That doesn’t answer the q’s, tho. I’m looking for direct y/n answers here, so that we can approach the decisions head-on, otherwise, all we’ll end up doing is talking around the problem but never getting closer.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 19, 2009 4:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
1. No
2. Yes
Not having your head up tough luck. Turning at the last second and getting hit from behind maybe not suspendable but a penalty none the less. I guess that is where I come out on it. And like I said I am not sure guys would put themselves in vulnerable positions to draw a penalty. Some might but my feeling is they wouldn’t be in the league very long if they did that.
by Section 312 on Nov 19, 2009 4:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
As a quick note of clarification since I just read what I just wrote and it could be clearer. Not having you head up and a clean hit tough luck. If you are admiring your pass and get hit you deserve it. But if a guy jumps three feet to clean your clock that is a head shot. You kinda deserve it for not paying attention but he also deserves a penalty for the hit not being clean.
by Section 312 on Nov 19, 2009 4:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But if a guy jumps three feet to clean your clock that is a head shot.
I agree with that 100%. There are rules in place for that already
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 5:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I should also answer my own q’s while I’m at it:
1. No
2. No
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 19, 2009 4:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
They may if they aren’t thinking rationally. And that’s the problem, it would seem that you’re assuming that there is a full, conscious, cost-benefit analysis going on, and that’s not how the brain works. I’m not a hockey player, so my knowledge of the relative risk of certain penalties is limited, but it all factors in. There is certainly a subset of players who may very well be willing to take that level of risk for the team.
by rsm on Nov 19, 2009 4:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Athletes already sacrifice their bodies in untold ways, on and off the ice. And in the heat of battle, make that times ten. When the crowd is cheering and the game is exciting and their blood is pumping and they have a split second to decide … yeah, I agree w/you: they’ll do it.
You’d have to train that instinct outta them, which is why I think a penalty would then be necessary for guys doing it. If you start w/the penalty for hitting in a vulnerable position, that is.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 19, 2009 4:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The Mitchell hit was used by the GMs as a perfect example of a “good hit”. It wasn’t a blindside hit, he was just suddenly in front of him. He kept his hands down.
So, no, you don’t make that hit illegal. You make the forearm and elbow to the head illegal, and you also take the blindside hit out. I have no problem handling getting hit on the ice from someone I see coming.
And I have known since I skated on my ankles that you can’t watch the puck and have your head down. Do that at your peril.
But if you take out the forearm and elbow targeting the head, apart from Phanuef being penalized out of the league, it makes it faier.
If someone gets hit in the melon because its Chara hitting Wellwood, well…tough titty. Size should not matter.
But forearm shivers and elbows to the head should.
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
by vancitydan on Nov 19, 2009 6:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Y’know, seems unfair to call a penalty on a headshot anytime a player puts himself in a vulnerable position but I’m inclined to call the penalty. Penalties are the greatest deterrence to violence and headshots are violent because the head is so vulnerable. I maintain that if a penalty is called (fines as well) whenever a headshot happens, in time it will usher in the end of the headshot.
by Bobby Canuck on Nov 19, 2009 4:15 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Does that mean?
1. yes
2. no
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 19, 2009 4:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
My answer was
I’m inclined to call the penalty.
So I guess I’m a yes/yes.
by Bobby Canuck on Nov 19, 2009 4:20 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
And you are entitled to your opinion of course :)
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 5:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Truthfully, when it occurred I didn’t think Mitchell’s hit warranted a penalty because it didn’t appear that he hit his head. Haven’t seen a replay and my old computer is useless when it comes to video streaming. So if you guys say he hit the guy’s head, I’ll believe it and give Willie the penalty.
by Bobby Canuck on Nov 19, 2009 4:24 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Toews missed several games with a concussion. Head contact was made somewhere there.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 5:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If you hit a guy clean and his head hits the ice, or his head stops suddenly and his brain careens into his skull that isn’t your fault. I don’t remember Toews head getting hit other than maybe his chin because of the size difference.
by Section 312 on Nov 20, 2009 10:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
BTW, for clarification, I mean a “putting yourself in a vulnerable position” penalty – re the y/n q’s – even if no hit ever takes place at all, even if the opposing player turns away. Maybe even especially if the opposing player turns away, otherwise, the perverse incentive remains to do it as often as possible in order to avoid contact by forcing the checker away from you thru the threat of himself being penalized. If making onself vulnerable were to be allowed to accomplish that, it would then be done at every opportunity.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 19, 2009 4:34 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
So you are suggesting a penalty if i reach for the puck and thus lower my head to elbow height and get my clock cleaned?
by Section 312 on Nov 19, 2009 4:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Like I put myself in a vulnerable position so I get a penalty and then in the future I wouldn’t put myself in those positions?
by Section 312 on Nov 19, 2009 4:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That was the implication I think. The problem is that there is an actual incentive to make yourself vulnerable, i.e. drawing the extended penalty.
by rsm on Nov 19, 2009 4:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s an interesting idea isn’t it? I hadn’t thought of anything like that before. I mean my initial concern is that you want to try to legislate how guys can move around the ice as little as possible but we already do with a lot of the rules on hitting and of course offside and all that. So there is no reason it couldn’t work.
by Section 312 on Nov 19, 2009 4:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
yes and yes. And it applies even if you don;t get your clock cleaned. It’s an inevitable penalty neded if we’re gonna call any shot to the head, even inadvertent ones.
Otherwise, if I see you coming to hit me, I’ll just lower my head or turn my back. Hit me and you take a penalty. Either that or you have to turn away from the hit. And anytime I go after the uk along the boards I’ll be sure to lower my head. Now you can;t touch me without putting my team on the PP.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 19, 2009 4:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I really don’t think players are that batshit insane save a few.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 5:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
……the really fucking stupid ones.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 5:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Who will only enhance their stupidity.
But … there’s always borderline plays and kinda-sorta situations and the like, and half-vulnerable positions. If there’s a way to draw a penalty, the players will find it and they’ll push the envelope in doing so.
So, no, they won’t, er, “present” themselves to the opposing player in the ethological sense, but they will turn a bit, just enough to create a borderline hit that could draw a penalty. And ham it up after the hit, too, of course.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 19, 2009 5:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough. I can agree with that.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 5:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t want hockey to end up like soccer, with the outcome far too often determined by a borderline call by the officials – in soccer that includes their amazingly subjective offside rule as well as the “tackling inside the box” calls – and we have enough penalties already in our game.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 19, 2009 5:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'll go through the vids posted
Mike Richards hit is a perfect example of a targetted headshot, that is complete horseshit.
He had him lined up and could have buried him with a clean shoulder to the body but at the last second he raises up and makes deliberate, direct contact with the head of an unaware opponent. The commentators are bang on with that one, no fucking need for that headshot.
by yoata on Nov 19, 2009 6:23 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Weight on Sutter
Nothing wrong with that hit, Sutter reaches out and therefore lowers his head at the last second, much like Lindros did when Stevens KO’d him, nothing a hitter can do about that.
by yoata on Nov 19, 2009 6:25 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Liambis on Fanelli
Borderline charge/board that may not have even gotten 2 mins much less a years suspension if not for the unfortunate but unforseeable result.
Clean shoulder to should on a player who turned his back at the last second in order to clear the puck around, but still, not the hitter’s fault for finishing his check hard.
Fanelli did everything wrong on that play and nothing that bantams are taught in order to avoid/mitigate hits.
by yoata on Nov 19, 2009 6:28 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Richards On Booth
was clean. Richards did not more than brace for collision.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 19, 2009 6:31 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
"brace"
by raising his shoulder into the chin of Booth instead of just hitting his shoulder or body?
by yoata on Nov 19, 2009 6:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I see no pt in engaging with you yoata as you do not know how to argue civilly and I have promised Sean to “keep it down.” If you are confused by this or do not understand it, I could always post previous comments of yours to illustrate my reasoning, but I suspect the rest of the members here have already seen enough.
Bye.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 19, 2009 6:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
wtf is uncivil
about that post?
It was a question, requiring a simple y/n as you are so fond of.
What you don’t like about it is that it contradicts you, which you obiously can’t handle.
Ciao.
by yoata on Nov 19, 2009 6:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Good analysis Yoata, on all those hits.
The Richards one especially. I thought the sme thing. It was a beat too late, but if he hits him with his shoulder, its not “dirty”.
The space age elbow pad and forearm shivers are what causes at least some of the concussions.
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
by vancitydan on Nov 19, 2009 6:34 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I think you may have misread
my post on that one dan,
I think that is dirty, shoulder yes, but he targetted Booth’s head, could have hit his shoulder or chest but raised up and went for the head, totally unnecessary imo, and I like Richards.
by yoata on Nov 19, 2009 6:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Thats what I meant. The arm going up was not needed. Its what made Mitchell’s hit devestating but clean, and Richards dirty.
But, Richards was a beat late and from the blindside. I have no problem with getting blind side and vulnerable position head shots out of the game.
Hitting would not suffer. Just headhunters would.
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
by vancitydan on Nov 19, 2009 6:42 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
ok
then we agree,
And I was just about to post about the Mitchell hit:
Again, clean shoulder to shoulder, Mitchell did what Richards should have, hit the body, not the head, contact with Toews head was incidental, Mitchell did not raise up to “brace” or for any reason because there was no reason to unless you are headhunting. And that is why Toews skated off after having his bell rung by a clean hit, and Booth was KO’d.
by yoata on Nov 19, 2009 6:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Honestly Dan, I watch that video and I see a guy just delivering a hard hit. Maybe you’re picking up on something I missed, I guess, but I saw Richards’ arm go more out than up as he rather pushed Booth as he hit him in what I took as an attempt to cushion the blow to his (Richards’) own self.
Be nice to have even more camera angles on that one; it was close.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 19, 2009 6:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
BTW…read the PPP thread on the third period. Poor fuckers have had one hell of a game to deal with tonight.
Complete with a 4 minute call for HS where it wasn’t even a Leafs stick that did the damage.
Scored to take the lead with 29 seconds left…and gave it back with 1.5 left.
Now a disputed goal in OT…fuckers just can’t get a break.
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
by vancitydan on Nov 19, 2009 6:44 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Ugh! Not fair, but it happens.
By the time T.O. gets the ship turned around, the season could be lost. At what pt are they playing for next year already? Not yet, for sure, nothing a nice winning streak couldn’t fix yet, but the clock is ticking.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 19, 2009 6:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m watching it! Damned choking Leafs
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 6:49 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Monster's first shootout....
is a fail
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 6:51 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
How’d he look in it? Solid – even if he got beat – or shaky?
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 19, 2009 6:52 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
This is a garbage hit
And yet many have said Bergeron put himself in a vulnerable position.
wtf should he have done, deliberately lost the race for the puck?
Jones HAS to let up there, HFB is as dirty as it gets.
by yoata on Nov 19, 2009 6:54 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
this is the link
by yoata on Nov 19, 2009 6:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yoata…I know what you mean about going for the puck…but he did shove his head into the boards.
It was a lack of respect hit from behind…
Though the way some players try to take advantage of the boarding rule by turning their numbers to the hitter at the last second drives me nuts.
It is easier for us to notice that in full HD glory than for the refs at real time though.
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
by vancitydan on Nov 19, 2009 6:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I know
I don’t like the turtling either but Bergeron did not do that, he was legitmately vulnerable there.
HD or no, and I’ve reffed the game, that was a wreckless, dangerous play that does not belong in the game, I remember thinking Bergeron could well be paralyzed, and unlike Fanelli, that to me IS foreseeable with a vicious HFB like that.
by yoata on Nov 19, 2009 7:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hmm. The Bergeron hit is a tough one. Thanks for the link. Looks to me like Jones had time to back off. He even pushed him well before Bergeron got to the boards. Huh..
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 7:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I honestly
can’t figure out what’s tough about it, clear HFB on a vulnerable player, very dangerous.
by yoata on Nov 19, 2009 7:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Cas’…very shaky.
Jussi Jokinen is the S/O king tho, as they called him.
Yeah, the thing is, watching all these hits, if you are not ready to give the hit, WTF are you doing on the ice.
Putting the arm up into the head was not the way I was taught to hit. Putting the shoulder on the solar plexus was.
Richards came from the blindside too much for my liking.
Racing for Icing is another thing entirely. It is a fast sport.
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
by vancitydan on Nov 19, 2009 6:57 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
In a nutshell
Putting the arm up into the head was not the way I was taught to hit. Putting the shoulder on the solar plexus was.
Exactly, and anybody that’s given or taken a solid hit to the sternum knows it rings your bell plenty, not to mention knocking the wind out of you.
by yoata on Nov 19, 2009 7:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The arm didn’t hit the head, as far as I could tell, at least not directly. The shoulder did as Richards leaned into the hit, but Richards didn’t elbow him nor jump. He just leaned his shoulder forward and caught Booth looking down.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 19, 2009 7:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I had to follow the video longer and get a diff camera angle to be able to tell, tho. Tough call, happened real fast.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 19, 2009 7:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well where I freeze framed the Richards hit, you can see that his arm and elbow is down. Shoulder contact. Vancitydan’s comment about Richards coming form the blindside is an intriguing one and worth looking at.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 7:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Nothing felt better though than that “whuffff” when your opponent felt it.
There are some hits where the contact is incidental, but the majority of concussed players would probably tell you…“he had his arm up”.
They make that a penalty, and guys will go back to hitting the way they were taught. Its just that it becomes…“that fucker hit _______, I’m going to ring that ________ bell on their team at first opportunity.”
Not to change the subject, but someone above was lauding the Hawks for going after Mitchell.
Fuck that. Policing on the ice is one thing, and I agree the instigator rule is stupid, but what the fuck ever happened to taking a number?
Fights after clean hits drive me nuts too.
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
by vancitydan on Nov 19, 2009 7:05 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely
Take the number and pay him back with a good clean hard check of your own.
You let guys like Boogard shitkick anybody that hits and pretty soon it’ will be soccer out there.
Again, another story if a guy is running around throwing borderline hit or going out of his way to target star players, Toews took a Kevorkian pass and Mitchell did what you are supposed to do.
by yoata on Nov 19, 2009 7:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think we’re pretty much in agreement, other than real tight calls like the Richards hit. To me, Booth only had a blind side to be blindsided from in the first place cuz he had his head down and was looking in the opposite direction from where he was skating. But judgment calls are just that and I respect yours even when I disagree.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 19, 2009 7:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Toews
had his head down too, so Mitchell should have gone for the KO instead of just thumping him to the body?
by yoata on Nov 19, 2009 7:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
[crickets chirping]
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 19, 2009 7:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not to change the subject, but someone above was lauding the Hawks for going after Mitchell.
I believe that was my comment. I stand by it. I don’t mind a guy dropping the gloves and challenging Mitchell for example after that hit. It’s your buddy laying there, clean hit or not. Where’s the commaraderie? I’ll take either a fight or a clean hit as payback or policing.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 7:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But Sean, I know because he is your Captain and all, and laying hurt on home ice, you do it there.
There is nothing wrong with taking the guys number, and laying his ass out on the next shift with a clean hit.
THAT does tons for team camraderie that what has become a rote response to every clean fucking hit in the league these days.
Wow…Calgary is down 6-1, and there is still a period to play…Hawks are killing them, and there is this big vein throbbing at the temple of Coach Sutter.
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
by vancitydan on Nov 19, 2009 8:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
easily
the most overrated defense in the league, has been for years.
by yoata on Nov 19, 2009 8:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
There is nothing wrong with taking the guys number, and laying his ass out on the next shift with a clean hit.
I don’t disagree with you. I’m just saying I’d do either/or
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 8:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Perfect! The Flames are finally catching up to us in games played and are going to go 1-2 while we sat idly by
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 8:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But they have Phanuef…and JBo…and Regehr…and Giordano is supposed to be, to quote some Flames troll from before the season started…"better than anyone you guys have on the Canucks blue line.
Lames have played like that tonight…but yeah…they are slow…
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
by vancitydan on Nov 19, 2009 8:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Earlier this season some Flame loser tried to tell me Giordano was better than Bieksa. Now, lots of D men are better than Bieksa but not Giordonna.
by Section 312 on Nov 20, 2009 11:03 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Probably the same guy…
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
by vancitydan on Nov 20, 2009 11:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Arm, shoulder, elbow
doesn’t matter what part makes contact
What matters is whether it was deliberate or incidental
There was no need for Richards to raise up the way he did unless he was headhunting which he clearly was, or he would have just gone shoulder to shoulder which would have been a devastating enough hit in that position, he went for the kill and crossed the line bigtime from hockey play to intent to harm.
by yoata on Nov 19, 2009 7:07 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I think it should be up to the players. If the majority of the players want to keep head shots in the game, then that is their choice and as a fan I respect that. But if the majority of players wants to take action against head shots, then as a fan I respect that too.
I don’t really think anybody who isn’t out there on the ice playing should be making the decision.
by jozsef on Nov 19, 2009 7:16 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I hear you but … well, it is “entertainment” after all. If the audience wants “Romeo and Juliet” but will walk out on “The King and I,” then you either give ‘em what they want or close the show. Fans don’t come for the headshots per se, but they may or may nott not like what has to be done to the game to remove them.
I do think the pros and ex-pros are best positioned to strike the right balance here, that they have the best insights into what could actually work.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 19, 2009 7:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's a good point
but there are other considerations, the game is being marketed so the fans have a say in what they want (and don’t want) to see.
Then there are the GMs and owners who design their teams and dole out huge contracts only to watch a great talent be cut short/diminished by PCS or other injury.
Then there’s the liability issue, those big contracts are insured so due diligence must be done in order to be insurable/keep premiums manageable.
by yoata on Nov 19, 2009 7:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
For the record, when the whiny analysts on TSN start talking about violence my lunch starts to charge up my esophagus. I wish it was a much more private matter discussed within the NHLPA instead of this shrill witch hunt being lead by a bunch of effete journalists.
by jozsef on Nov 19, 2009 7:27 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
C’mon jozsef, don’t sugarcoat it; tell us what you really think! :)
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 19, 2009 7:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree jozsef, but they are just piling on a hot button issue. Doing their jobs, so to speak.
They were just saying how the NHL is close to “soft cap” shoulder pads being mandatory next year.
Didn’t know that. Its a good idea though, as the hard road warrior pads are too far down the protection road and have become weapons.
There are ways to police hitting without taking it out. Outlawing the head as a point of first contact is a start.
There is no need for it. You can do enough damage with a clean check, that forearms and elbows to the head are just violence for its own sake.
For instance, some Chi. fans I know were trying to rationalize Ladd’s hit against Montreal…but he put his arm out to go after the guy that was going by him. His shoulder was the first thing to hit the poor Hab, but he hung the arm out and jumped to hit him in the head first. D’Agostini never had a chance…and it was obvious in its intent.
Make that illegal. They can still hit…just not to the head.
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
by vancitydan on Nov 19, 2009 7:38 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Outlawing the head as a point of first contact is a start
OK, so going back to the point in my post, what does that mean for tall guys hitting shorter guys? They have to back off then? I say BS to that.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 8:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Sean…that is OK. I am talking about the arm and elbow to the head, or the jumping up like Ladd did on D’Agostini to make the head the first point of contact.
I believe I said above…if Chara hits Wellwood…well…tough titty.
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
by vancitydan on Nov 19, 2009 8:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Alright you two. Thanks for the clarification. I think I can agree with most of what you guys are saying.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 8:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This might
be the best example of what Sean is talking about
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8up-tkxZ4r8
Clean hit, but the much shorter Kariya def suffered some incidental head contact, but not enough to keep him out for long, very likely more the wind effect than anything with that hit, but still no targetting of the head.
by yoata on Nov 19, 2009 9:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Haha, you really didn’t read the whole like you said. I mentioned that in there. ;)
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 9:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry man
but you are a long-winded sob. ; )
I think Stevens gets a bad rap because he was such an effective hitter, hard, with bad intent sure, but almost always clean, I’m a huge fan of him and his style, great player.
by yoata on Nov 19, 2009 9:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah me too.
I’m long winded? haha. Yeah, tough to sum it up in a few paragraphs. Like I said: I could go on about this all day.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 9:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I wonder
if those who see no problem with targetting the head, must not have taken any issue with what Moore did to Naslund?
by yoata on Nov 19, 2009 7:48 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Naslund…digging at the puck with Moore coming at him. I had to watch that again. Like the hit. Crawford’s gripes are unwarranted.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 8:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Naslund
never even touched the puck, he was completely vulnerable, and Moore, instead of playing the puck, chipped it away so he could dive straight at the head of a star player and take him out.
Just as he did to several other star players before. Somebody was going to get that little puke sooner or later, too bad Bertuzzi had the requisite shortage of brains to be the one to do it as he did.
by yoata on Nov 19, 2009 8:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ah, he never touched the puck. True enough. Yeah there is already a rule in place for that.
It wasn’t a vicious elbow though, Dan. The elbow didn’t go up. He had it tucked to his side and down.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 8:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He dove
directy at Naslund’s head.
Only reason Naslund wasn’t hurt worse is he pulled his head back at the last second, otherwise he’d have been KTFO.
by yoata on Nov 19, 2009 8:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think we’ll disagree on that one. He leaned into him pretty hard.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 9:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Of course
he did, he went flying through the air.
by yoata on Nov 19, 2009 9:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
after the contact was made, not before.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 9:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Still
left his feet, otherwise no superman, notice too how Nas pulled his head back just in time, otherwise he might’ve been the one with the “broken neck.”
by yoata on Nov 19, 2009 9:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh yeah, credit to Nazzy for pulling his head back. He would have missed more than 3 games had he not
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 9:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
cmon
freeze frame doesn’t tell the story, can’t take it out of context like that, right there he’s in the process of launching himself, like I said, Nas doesn’t pull back he takes the full brunt on the side of the head, that would have been brutal.
by yoata on Nov 19, 2009 9:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well sir..I think my freeze frame is money!
At least we can agree that in general the hit was wrong.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 9:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Who's the bigger fool in this picture?
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 9:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
easy
There are just so many more levels to the foolishness of that Avs fan…
by yoata on Nov 19, 2009 9:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
that’s what I thought you’d say! haha
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 10:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That goes to what they are also talking about, the targeting of a player in a vulnerable position.
Moore’s elbow to the chin was targeted…no doubt.
There has to be some respect for your fellow players too.
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
by vancitydan on Nov 19, 2009 8:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t know. Moore was going to hit him regardless. Naslund bent over to tip the puck at the last second. What was Moore to do? Let up? We’re talking less than a second to do so.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 8:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Then again, this is a bad example because like Yoata said, Naslund never even touched the puck.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 8:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not at the last second
He was reaching out for the puck well before.
Watch it again and ask yourself why does Moore chip the puck away and go for the hit, why not just take possession of the puck? He made no attempt to play the puck, just targetted Naslund’s head as he saw the opportunity to take him out.
by yoata on Nov 19, 2009 8:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I see that now. Well he definitely wanted to crank him that’s for sure. Had Naslund touched the puck then I don’t think Moore needed take possession of it. But end of the day that hit is wrong because Macke never did play the puck at all.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 9:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
In case this conversation dries up, thanks all for the discussion. We may disagree on several aspects of the issue but it was great yapping at all of you regardless. We just killed a fair bit more time before tomorrow’s game!
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 8:33 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Back atcha
Man a game would be nice.
Stupid schedule. : D
by yoata on Nov 19, 2009 9:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If you take the emotion out, I am inclined to agree with you Sean. Nazzy should have been more aware.
I thought when he went into him, the elbow was down, but you can see him run it through the chin.
I never buy that incidental contact bullshit though. Most players know exactly what they are doing.
But it looked more like Moore was just trying to give it a little extra and got lucky and scored big.
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
by vancitydan on Nov 19, 2009 8:34 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I just don't
even see how a guy could expect a hit there, it was a vain attempt at a reach but Moore clearly was going to win the race for the puck, except he had no interest in the puck, not once he saw Nas was vulnerable.
by yoata on Nov 19, 2009 8:53 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
That is a fact too. Which is why it became such a lightning rod act.
Man…rehashing the darkest days of Canucks fucking lore…do we need a puck drop or what?
Flames sure got whalloped tonight.
7-1 and 4 PP goals.
We’ll get to them soon enough. Time to take care of those Avs…put them in their own place.
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
by vancitydan on Nov 19, 2009 9:11 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Man…rehashing the darkest days of Canucks fucking lore…do we need a puck drop or what?
No doubt :) I thought we were supposed to be thinking OUTSIDE the Canucks Box on this post. ha! Nope!
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 9:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
@Section 312:
Reply function isn’t working for me…
In regards to Mitchell/Toews:
There is head contact there. Check it out in HD here.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 20, 2009 12:21 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Well either way I addressed this earlier. If a guy hasn’t jumped, isn’t using his elbow and the other guy isn’t in a vulnerable position ie facing the boards then it is clean. The only reason Toews head gets hit is cause of the size difference. That’s not a hit to the head. It’s a hit where the head got hit. And I think that is an important difference.
And I will never consider having your head down or admiring a pass as being vulnerable. That’s just being stupid.
And you hear Ferraro say Toews got to the bench and said, “Fuck, I had my head down.” He knows it was his own fault.
by Section 312 on Nov 20, 2009 1:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Look at the pic. Arms down, feet on the ice. That’s textbook. They should show this hit as a teaching aid at hockey schools.
by Section 312 on Nov 20, 2009 2:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If a guy hasn’t jumped, isn’t using his elbow and the other guy isn’t in a vulnerable position ie facing the boards then it is clean.
I’m down with that.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 20, 2009 2:10 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
And I will never consider having your head down or admiring a pass as being vulnerable. That’s just being stupid.
I’m down with that too.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 20, 2009 2:11 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Man…feel the agreeing love here….I am down with both of “that”.
Way down. Its the deciding factor in clean hit/dirty hit.
I really think just penalizing the head being targeted would get rid of most of the bad hits…
No first contact. If a player doesn’t leave his feet or raise his arm…clean hit.
Use the Mitchell hit as a perfect example of it.
You know it was a good hit when you read the opposition media like I did afterward, and found with as many outlets as Chitown has, it was a huge majority that all agreed with how clean the hit was.
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
by vancitydan on Nov 20, 2009 3:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think we did it, at least mostly, we came to agreement on this, didn’t we?
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 20, 2009 2:19 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I think we did it, at least mostly, we came to agreement on this, didn’t we?
That is pretty amazing when you think about it.
Today should be marked down as some sort of holiday.
by Section 312 on Nov 20, 2009 2:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s Truce Day. Everyone shakes hands and makes up.
Fun conversation though.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 20, 2009 2:29 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
As long as no one mentions Cody Hodgson. Oh shit. I just did it.
by Section 312 on Nov 20, 2009 2:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, but we’re Wizards now – see the left sidebar – so we can make that go away. Shazam! Go Canucks!
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 20, 2009 2:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No one is a Wiz yet…gotta get results first!
Just to mix it up…I was most impressed by MHH and their “nickname” list.
http://www.milehighhockey.com/pages/official-list-of-mhh-player
Where’s ours? I get a little bored with putting an “ie” on everyone’s name.
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
by vancitydan on Nov 20, 2009 3:49 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Haha. That’s awesome stuff right there. We’ll have to do the same soon. We just need more nicknames. Remember that for the game thread tonight, whoever shows up for that.
What do we have so far..
Woody, Woodrow, Tubbs, Sir FineBark of the Woodshire-Wellwood
The Keslord
Luongod
The Hank and Dank Connection? The French Meatball line if Burrows plays with them?
Stone Hands-Bernier
Rayzor, Facepalm-Raycroft
Beesuk-Bieksa
Big Willie- Mitchell
Glass Man, Glass Joe- Salo
Demo, Piece of shit, etc- Demitra
The Emperor, Gillsgan-Gillis
Son of Sam-Samuelsson
Just a start. Others? More added to the current list?
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 20, 2009 4:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Gas Line or Crack Line-Sammy-Kesler-Grabner
Blackout, HordichukNorris-Hordichuk
Ripper-Rypien
Error-Ehrhoff. Not fitting. He kicks ass.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 20, 2009 4:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Pudge
I get that Keslord and Luongod riff, but if we have one more we can have a Holy Trinity…just like the Catholics!
Wonder Twins
Did you see those two goals? Both were sniper shots…he has hands…just still figuring out how to use them… I like Rainman. Like Dustin Hoffman.
Razer…hate that fucking Facepalm…
Juice
Big Stick Willie
Sharpy ( Glass that can hurt you is sharp glass..get it? )
Demo
Gillis is Yoda…can’t identify with those fucking Maul fellows!
Sammy
Burr’…because it is a shortening of the name, but also a comment on the way he plays…a burr in his opponents sides.
Grabner could be the other member of that Holy Trinity…. Jesus….
RJ…love his nickname already. Balls it is.
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
by vancitydan on Nov 20, 2009 4:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
fuck 7uongo. that is a thing of the past
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 20, 2009 11:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Wellwood could be the “wholly ghost” of late cuz some games he seems invisible … but that could change.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 20, 2009 4:48 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I like RRumble
As in let’s get ready to RRumble!!!
by yoata on Nov 21, 2009 10:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Nucks Misconduct
Related FanShots on Nucks Misconduct
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Follow The Misconduct
 |
 |
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Kari Lehtonen traded to Dallas, Turco move to come?
- Puck Previews: 'Hawks, Stars battle; Franzen in for Sweden?
- Evgeni Nabokov puts his name in the Vezina race
- Puck Daddy chats with Brandon Yip about life as a rookie, his first NHL game, Colorado’s success this season and the upcoming Olympics
- Puck Headlines: Getzlaf ankle worry; Quick's Olympic mask
SBNation.com Recent Stories
SCOREBOARD
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
