| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 03/30/2010 : 22:17:47
Ryan Kesler was ejected in the first period of tonights 'Nucks / 'Yotes (your two favorite nic's Beans ) for a boarding call. I can only imagine the thoughts all you Kesler haters will have on this one!
Have a look, then fire away!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQug6qoqBOc
Personally, and i'll prob hear the "bias' word immediately, i don't think it was all that bad. It appears as though he lined Morris up from the side but Morris turns to reverse the puck and bingo, it's a hit from behind! There's no denying that Kesler makes some contact with "the numbers" but it's one of those ones that looks to me as though the player with the puck is part to blame. These guys gotta stop turning to face the boards when they know a guy is closing on them with speed, likely looking to hit them!
Interestingly enough, no penalty was being called originally and it wasn't until the refs got together and chatted that a call was made! |
| 40 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Guest8186 |
Posted - 04/08/2010 : 07:10:59
Ok time for me to way in with my 2 cents first of all let me start by saying I'm a Kessler hater but even I don't think it was that bad . a penelty for sure just because of the length of run and speed. I alsothink that the only reson he was tossed was because the game was in danger of getting out of hand with possible payback against Kessler coming later.I100% agree with what the reffs did. It was absolutly the right call and a great attempt and regaining control of the game So to sum up penelty yes susspension no nuff said |
| Guest1757 |
Posted - 04/08/2010 : 05:07:52
Thank you for that great input, Iceman |
| Iceman778 |
Posted - 04/08/2010 : 01:42:17
yes i agree with you |
| n/a |
Posted - 04/05/2010 : 16:28:13
I'm always up for a beer, Fat Elvis . . . and I am sure you would be too seeing as it was part of your downfall Oh, the Elvis jokes.
We can agree to disagree I guess . . . but as you can tell from many of these threads, I rarely tire of trying to make people see the light!
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 04/05/2010 : 10:52:40
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
Well, I didn't mean to belittle you, and I am sorry you feel that way - not what was intended. I thought it was more of a comdeic spin on it.
You said play the puck . . . if not a pass, what else would be a play on the puck - a karate chop? A love tap? a friendly reminder? All kidding aside, my point was that by seeing where his elbow is, and know how one can make a play on the puck (or a pass, same thing I reckon), the two are incongruent - it was a deliberate intent to stick a high elbow on the face of the checker. He looks, sees him coming, and raises the elbow! It's the move of a slower, wily player.
But fair enough, if you really don't see Morris raising his elbow as intentional, you don't and we'll leave it at that.
Take my comedic wording lightly my friend!
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
We really need to have one of these discussions, as I believe it was Alex suggested, over a beer in a pub somewhere, too much nuance gets lost in the typed word.
Pull no punches with me, I take as good as I get, and I promise, I am typing with a smile. I always take things with a comedic spin, so don't change a thing, just remember the spin is always back your way too.
I'll clarify, to me, it looked like Morris looked up for the outlet pass,(I'm not convinced he saw Kesler coming either, but's that a whole other thing), lost the puck in the boards and his skates. Again, to me, it appeared he had to pull his stick in close to his body, to 'play' the puck and get it back in to a postion of control. That is what I think caused his elbow to rise. Just my opinion, I realize there may be 2 opinions here, yours......and the right one. |
| n/a |
Posted - 04/05/2010 : 10:40:56
Well, I didn't mean to belittle you, and I am sorry you feel that way - not what was intended. I thought it was more of a comdeic spin on it.
You said play the puck . . . if not a pass, what else would be a play on the puck - a karate chop? A love tap? a friendly reminder? All kidding aside, my point was that by seeing where his elbow is, and know how one can make a play on the puck (or a pass, same thing I reckon), the two are incongruent - it was a deliberate intent to stick a high elbow on the face of the checker. He looks, sees him coming, and raises the elbow! It's the move of a slower, wily player.
But fair enough, if you really don't see Morris raising his elbow as intentional, you don't and we'll leave it at that.
Take my comedic wording lightly my friend!
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 04/05/2010 : 10:33:57
quote:
Originally posted by Guest9282
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
So you take the "he ran into my elbow" approach, and it's the other guy's fault for trying to lay a check and hitting his head on an elbow which is raised at shoulder level.
You raise your elbow to that height and try to make a pass . . .lol. Seriously.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Once again in your zest to 'ram your point through', you belittle another opion..lol...seriously.
I didn't say pass, I said play the puck, there IS a difference. YOU said he raised his elbow in an offensive manner, and called it fact. I said there isn't anything other than opinion to back that up, and gave my own.
I said that if Morris was to be found guilty of throwing his elbow up as protection he would indeed be guilty of an infraction, and ....why am I repeating myself? Calling on reading comprehension is your shtick.
I always agree to disagree, I just hope I don't patronize anyone while doing so...
Why would I have to take the 'he ran into my elbow approach', if that's what MAY have happened? I' ll even avoid calling it a fact to give way to your differing opinion. You asked, I answered.
The only fact that remains out of the whole incident, is that Kesler got 5 and a game.
Jeesh!(saw you use that in another post and couldn't resist).
Sorry Slozo, this post is me...in case you weren't sure.. |
| Guest9282 |
Posted - 04/05/2010 : 10:30:03
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
So you take the "he ran into my elbow" approach, and it's the other guy's fault for trying to lay a check and hitting his head on an elbow which is raised at shoulder level.
You raise your elbow to that height and try to make a pass . . .lol. Seriously.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Once again in your zest to 'ram your point through', you belittle another opion..lol...seriously.
I didn't say pass, I said play the puck, there IS a difference. YOU said he raised his elbow in an offensive manner, and called it fact. I said there isn't anything other than opinion to back that up, and gave my own.
I said that if Morris was to be found guilty of throwing his elbow up as protection he would indeed be guilty of an infraction, and ....why am I repeating myself? Calling on reading comprehension is your shtick.
I always agree to disagree, I just hope I don't patronize anyone while doing so...
Why would I have to take the 'he ran into my elbow approach', if that's what MAY have happened? I' ll even avoid calling it a fact to give way to your differing opinion. You asked, I answered.
The only fact that remains out of the whole incident, is that Kesler got 5 and a game.
Jeesh!(saw you use that in another post and couldn't resist).
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/05/2010 : 10:21:53
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
So you take the "he ran into my elbow" approach, and it's the other guy's fault for trying to lay a check and hitting his head on an elbow which is raised at shoulder level.
You raise your elbow to that height and try to make a pass . . .lol. Seriously.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
I read it completely opposite. What I see specifically Fat Elvis saying is that if Kesler gets hit with the elbow than Morris gets the call and Kesler keeps playing.
Seriously. |
| n/a |
Posted - 04/05/2010 : 09:53:09
So you take the "he ran into my elbow" approach, and it's the other guy's fault for trying to lay a check and hitting his head on an elbow which is raised at shoulder level.
You raise your elbow to that height and try to make a pass . . .lol. Seriously.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 04/05/2010 : 08:04:11
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
Q to Fat Elvis:
If Morris' elbow had successfully connected to Kesler's head as he came in to check him, and if Kesler had been the one who was injured, what would be your call - and more importantly, what do you think the call of the ref would have been?
And please don't try to duck this, as this is not some crazy scenario I am trying to trip you up on - this is a legitimate potential occurrence, and I've seen it happen many times, in just such cases as the one that is under discussion here. No ifs and buts here . . . it was totally possible that Kesler could have gotten that elbow in the head.
Like Alex, I was in total agreement with you on the Liambas hit, in fact I was one of the most loud and forceful guys on your side there . . . but this hit is pretty borderline in my opinion, and the fact that Morris tries a vicious elbow on the incoming checker muddies the water quite a bit . . . an elbow to the head is just as illegal as a charge (I know it didn't connect, but you get my drift here).
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Uhh...If there was actually a legitimate question there, I would be glad to answer it.....
There was no elbow thrown or raised, for intent, based on the clip. There was no 'fact' involved.
Conjecture is no fact. There was no viscious contact with any elbow.
Now, all that being said, I'll take a stab at the scenario as outlined. Is it throwing an elbow if the hitter skates into it? I would think that would be another discretionary call by the referees as to whether or not the elbow was 'thrown' into the hitter, or whether it was inadvertent contact.
In this case, as I saw it, and this is where we will differ I am sure, Morris was playing the puck in his feet along the boards, and his elbow was up to give him the angle with his stick to get the puck. If Kesler skates into that elbow, which he did, it's part if the hit he threw, which was illegal, according to the zebras, with no repercussion for Morris.
So actually, your scenario isn't that far fom the truth, except that it's missing the 'truth' part.
Now had Morris actually thrown the elbow with intent, of course there would have to be a penalty involved, as the responsibility to protect yourself, does not allow illegal play to do so. There probably, in that scenario, would be no 5 and a game for Kesler, as the charge/boarding call would have to change as the vulnerability of the hittee would then be different if he had enough time to defend himself illegaly.
And PS. we actually were miles apart on the Liambas clip, I argued your interpretation of the clip on many occasions, as you did mine, deja vu?
|
| n/a |
Posted - 04/05/2010 : 05:01:54
Q to Fat Elvis:
If Morris' elbow had successfully connected to Kesler's head as he came in to check him, and if Kesler had been the one who was injured, what would be your call - and more importantly, what do you think the call of the ref would have been?
And please don't try to duck this, as this is not some crazy scenario I am trying to trip you up on - this is a legitimate potential occurrence, and I've seen it happen many times, in just such cases as the one that is under discussion here. No ifs and buts here . . . it was totally possible that Kesler could have gotten that elbow in the head.
Like Alex, I was in total agreement with you on the Liambas hit, in fact I was one of the most loud and forceful guys on your side there . . . but this hit is pretty borderline in my opinion, and the fact that Morris tries a vicious elbow on the incoming checker muddies the water quite a bit . . . an elbow to the head is just as illegal as a charge (I know it didn't connect, but you get my drift here).
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Guest0965 |
Posted - 04/05/2010 : 03:42:42
Morris saw it coming.
Morris is a veteran player.
I honestly would've ducked and threw Kesler over, Step out of the way or faced him.
Kesler being ejected infuriated me. Maybe i can see how the refs called it a boarding call. but still...ejected. lame lamee excuse refs. |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 04/03/2010 : 12:48:13
I am at a loss of what to say regarding this hit.
I agree that there is serious inconsistency in the calls, as I think this should have been a 5 and a game as well.
I don't think I can even begin to give my side, if there is one, as this is another example of a reckless, play, with the hitter calling it a strong forecheck...yada yada yada.
I give up. Those who enjoy this physical type of play, and see nothing wrong with it, enjoy. I'm done with trying to rationalize the need for it and can only watch and get enjoyment from the other parts of the sport.
As much as I enjoy debating the perceptions of these kinds of plays, I am finding it too much too keep up with, these are happening daily now, and as Alex mentioned, there is very little in the way of control or consistency being dispensed in the policing of it.
Play on boys, good luck selling the game, if this all the casual fan is seeing, based on media coverage. |
| Guest7219 |
Posted - 04/02/2010 : 15:16:32
The difference between the two hits to me is that Glass was looking at a player who was, from the moment he saw him, getting into a vulnerable position, heading towards the boards. He had to hope for Halpern to turn INTO a non vulnerable position, where the hit will still be pretty violent, though not as much as violent as Kelser's was. Kesler had better intentions and got bad luck, just like Glass in a way, as both hitees did not get into a good position and part of the blame does end up on them. If hits like this keep happening and nothing is done to solve them, as in, 2 minute boarding calls and no responsibility being enforced on the players, then we will have many more Patrick O'Sullivan type players who are absolutely afraid to touch the puck and will give up on plays if they have a chance to get hit. It's another side effect of not making a change, I just thought I'd throw it out there.
Guest9165 |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 04/02/2010 : 14:37:16
F_E, my reference to the Liambas his wasn't to do with us agreeing or disagreeing, it was meant to show that my stubborness and insistence at my point of view is not just "homer" based. I don't even follow the OHL and yet i debated/argued my (or our) views on that for days!
Back to the Kesler incident, i'd be okay in a case like that if it were a 2min minor. You see, imo, there should be some blame put on Morris so maybe if 2 mins is all he got, guys would think twice about risking serious injury to draw a penalty. Now, don't get me wrong, i don't think that was Morris' intention on this play but i do see a lot of guys turn to face the glass and get nailed. I do agree that maybe the "hitter", in this case Kesler, needs to be more careful about the speed they carry into a hit. It's such a fine line on a hit like this!!! Maybe a 5 min major (no game misconduct) and 2 to Morris? I dunno, i'm grasping now
What i don't like, and i'm sure everyone is on board with this, is the inconsistency in calls! Not sure if you saw the hit Tanner Glass (Canucks) put on Jeff Halpern last night? FAR worse than the Kesler hit and he only got 2? It's gotta be real frustrating for players to determine what they can and can't do?
Have a look at this one, and although if you watch it closely you'll notice Halpern lowers his upper body on the follow through from making the play. Now, i'm not saying he did it intentionally (it was a natural move for the play he made) but it put him in a more dangerous position regardless. Either way, i will agree with what i'm sure your opinion will be, that Glass is carrying far too much and makes this a very dangerous play! It's getting to the point where the "hitter" is gonna have to be very careful when throwing checks like these to ensure the guy he's hitting is not in a dangerous position. Fortunately, Halpern wasn't seriously injured although he did leave the game (not immediately as far as i recall) and didn't return? Haven't heard if he was injured further but from the looks of the hit, it could have been FAR worse!
Here's the response from Glass in an interview following the game.
"I thought it was a clean hit," Glass said.
"I was coming in on the forecheck, he knew I was there. He exposed the puck and I finished the check. The explanation I got was that I have to let up on that."I don't agree with them but that's how it goes."
NOTE the part i bolded . I think that's what it's getting to and maybe it'll take some for both players and fans to accept it but it's looking more and more like it's necessary.
BTW, here's the hit.........
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av42G8-21gM |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 04/02/2010 : 13:37:56
I don't know Alex, you and I were in agreement for most of the debate regarding the Liambas hit, I went and looked just to see...
The only difference this time around is our disagreement regarding whether or not Morris turned away from the hit, and whether a penalty should have been assessed at all.
I think what gets me ranting about these hit topics, is the increasing frequency with which they are happening. It's almost daily now, I sit down to watch TSN Sportscentre, and see some player getting pasted with ugly hits....I must be getting soft in my old age.
In regards back to this hit, I was just glad there was a call made.
On that we most certainly can agree to disagree, but I like the idea of players being put on notice that these types of hits are being scrutinized, we may get to that modified version of option 'a' mentioned earlier, yet.
|
| Alex116 |
Posted - 04/02/2010 : 01:02:55
F_E, thanks for the clarification it was you and not a "faceless guest", man i hate those!!!
Here's my rebuttal, whether you want it or not !
quote:
Fat_Elvis]And I would agree with you....except, he got a 5 minute major and game misconduct, not sure how you argue it's any fault of Morris' with that call in mind. The call was made, and supported by the league I am assuming. Kinda sums it for me.
I think you completely missed my point! Firstly, i didn't agree with the call, that's my whole point! I think Morris is partially to balme. 5 and a game seems pretty harsh to me. Secondly, how did the league support this call exactly? By not reprimanding the ref? They certainly didn't add any suspension to it which i think we all know would have happened if they felt they could have? At this point, ANYTHING the league can do that they feel is fair punishment as far as suspensions go they WILL do! They did nothing! Kesler played tonight (sort of, kinda like the rest of the Canucks ).
quote:
Fat_ElvisFor the record, I had no opinion(key word), as to whether or not Morris turned, nothing conclusive from the the clips, and again, I defer to the officials who not only had a better oppurtunity to confer and review, but are also paid to do these sorts of things. They called it as they did, all Kesler, and I have no argument for them.
You serious? You have to have an opinion, no? Beans and i do! Deferring to the officials is okay in most cases but when you say they had a "better opportunity to confer and review", did they really? Yes, they conferred. Both refs, who were planning on making no call, conferred with the linesmen, or at least one of them, and decided to make a call. There was no "review" and when i talk of a review i mean video. If you mean a run down of what the linesman saw, who for the record was further from the incident than the ref, then i guess i can't argue that. This is one of my problems with this, the ref was 10 feet away, standing directly on the face off dot looking directly at the hit! No one had a better view yet a linesman convinces him it was a major and game misconduct? And you're simply willing to "defer to the refs"?
Lemme qualify something before i go on. I will admit that i am very passionate about this incident because the Canucks are involved, but before you or anyone else calls me a homer or claims i'm biased, look back to the Liambas / Fanelli thread from last fall and you'll soon realize i will defend my point of view regardless of whether or not a team i support is involved!!!
BTW, i really wish that you, me and Beans could sit down at a pub and hash this out over beers, i'd even buy! Of course, then i'd have to invite Slozo, cuz he's on my side on this particular hit! Then again, i do that and he will prob require Beans to wear some Leafs gear in lieu of the Leafs logo he's gonna have to sport on here and then things could get ugly! |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 04/01/2010 : 21:22:45
quote:
Originally posted by Guest9282
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
F_E....
I agree with your "modified" version of "a". Only prob here is, i believe that's what he was doing. I know where you're going with this, but to physically take Morris completely out of the play is hitting him hard but clean, arguably as hard as possible within the boundaries of the rules......
And I would agree with you....except, he got a 5 minute major and game misconduct, not sure how you argue it's any fault of Morris' with that call in mind. The call was made, and supported by the league I am assuming. Kinda sums it for me.
For the record, I had no opinion(key word), as to whether or not Morris turned, nothing conclusive from the the clips, and again, I defer to the officials who not only had a better oppurtunity to confer and review, but are also paid to do these sorts of things. They called it as they did, all Kesler, and I have no argument for them.
PS. Don't think of yourself in terms of stubborn, only strong of conviction.....homer!
(please realize I kid, unlike some of the more sensitive out there).
Sorry Alex....the above was me...thought I was signed in. My apologies, I certainly wouldn't want you to think it's some faceless guest calling you a homer! |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/01/2010 : 17:34:05
quote:
Originally posted by tbar
I too am a firm believer that the player getting hit is just as responsible as the player throwing the hit. If I am coming to hit you DO NOT TURN AROUND.
Beans.......seriously Morris 100% had to know he was about to get hit he looked right at him.
What you or I firmly believe is completely irrelevant. Even if Kesler phoned Morris ahead of time and told him he was going to get hit, it doesn't matter.
The rules clearly states the onus is on the players applying the hit to ensure the player getting hit is not in a vulnerable position. The only time this does not apply is when the player getting hit turns. Based on what I watched on the link, Morris did not turn but was turned by the hit.
Kesler's 100% responsible and the refs nailed the call.
Can we move on soon?? I'm getting a little sick of arguing hits every other day. |
| Guest9282 |
Posted - 04/01/2010 : 16:20:13
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
F_E....
I agree with your "modified" version of "a". Only prob here is, i believe that's what he was doing. I know where you're going with this, but to physically take Morris completely out of the play is hitting him hard but clean, arguably as hard as possible within the boundaries of the rules......
And I would agree with you....except, he got a 5 minute major and game misconduct, not sure how you argue it's any fault of Morris' with that call in mind. The call was made, and supported by the league I am assuming. Kinda sums it for me.
For the record, I had no opinion(key word), as to whether or not Morris turned, nothing conclusive from the the clips, and again, I defer to the officials who not only had a better oppurtunity to confer and review, but are also paid to do these sorts of things. They called it as they did, all Kesler, and I have no argument for them.
PS. Don't think of yourself in terms of stubborn, only strong of conviction.....homer!
(please realize I kid, unlike some of the more sensitive out there). |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/01/2010 : 15:43:13
quote:
Originally posted by ReyR
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I still don't believe that Morris did turn his back. Stop the clock at :54 and tell me that Kesler does not already have contact with Morris and then click play and stop as fast as you can. You will clearly see that Kesler makes initial contact on the side or Morris under his left arm. Kesler then extends his right arm through the check which is what makes Morris kiss the glass.
Don't listen to the play by play, watch it with your eyes.
One more thing:
The onus is on the player (or goalkeeper) applying the check to ensure his opponent is not in a vulnerable position and if so, he must avoid the contact.
It is not Morris's responsibility to avoid the check, it was Kesler's as he was the player applying the check.
Severity dictated (according to the officials) that is was 5 and a game. I would rather see the refs err on the side of caution and lay the 5 and a game then not lay anything or 2 and watch the Coyotes head hunt for the rest of the game.
Still dead right call. This was not a straight up hockey hit. By definition of the rule, it was boarding.
That part is pretty clear.
Now, I think the punishment does fit the crime. 5 and a game and nothing more. Suspensions are for players that intend to injure. I do believe that this was simply an over agressive play by an agressive player on a forecheck.
Beans - I just gotta say that you should have included both sentences in your response. Why did you only focus on that one sentence from the rules and place full blame on the hitter? When the next sentence clearly states that the player being hit also has to avoid placing themselves in a vulnerable position?
The entire debate is in regards to who is ultimately responsible . You made some good points, but it weakens your points if it looks like you didn't take into account the rest of the rule that is relevant.
It doesn't weaken my argument because my entire argument is that the 2nd part (about the player getting hit turning his back) is irrelevant. Morris did not turn his back. As I have stated 3 times now, stop the video at the :54-:55 second mark and notice that Kesler hits Morris from the side, directly under Morris's left arm.
Morris's turn is from the hit Kesler laid. He did not turn therefore takes zero responsibility. Kesler's assumes 100% of the responsibility which is why I only included that part of the rule. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 04/01/2010 : 15:25:02
F_E....
I agree with your "modified" version of "a". Only prob here is, i believe that's what he was doing. I know where you're going with this, but to physically take Morris completely out of the play is hitting him hard but clean, arguably as hard as possible within the boundaries of the rules. Can't recall what side of the fence you're on (too lazy to scroll back to the other page) as to whether or not Morris turned towards the glass, but imo, he did. If he didn't, the hit would have been 1000% (not a typo) clean and hard and would have likely resulted in Morris on his butt, unhurt but shaken, and an offensive zone takeaway and possible shorthanded chance for Kesler and the Canucks.
I hope no one takes my opinion the wrong way. I'm not in any way saying it's Morris's fault entirely, it's just that had he continued up the ice, he would have been hit directly shoulder to shoulder.
I think those okay with the call, at least those in support of Kesler (be it Canuck fans or others), are the ones who realize it didn't really end up affecting the game. BUT, if Phoenix had gone on to score 2 or 3 on the 5 min major, opinions may just be different?
Either way, i too enjoy the debate and i apologize for being so stubborn with my views but that's just me i suppose. I think Morris knew he was coming, some, Beans for instance, don't think so. Tough to prove opinions once again! |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 04/01/2010 : 13:18:14
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
----------
I understand where you're coming from and i agree with the fact that "driving the guy through the boards" isn't necessary. What we're seeing (IMO) though is guys progressively getting bigger and faster over the years and therefore either having the speed or size to increase the results of checks. Let's face it, what're Keslers options here:
a. Hit him hard as he can and hope to steal the puck and have Morris on his butt. This allows a free attempt towards goal.
b. Bump him, maybe enabling him to steal the puck and kill more of the penalty
c. Bump him and allow him to clear the puck up the boards or back around the net to a teammate
d. abort, try to stick check and return to a defensive postion to continue the PK.
---------
Alex,
'd' would be a terrible option, the hit is there, along with the oppurtunity to dislodge the puck, and as you say, create a potential scoring chance. 'D' is not a valid option in the heat of the moment. I mean that, no sarcasm.
What I would like to see players do in this case is a modified version of 'a'. the only difference being the first part, hit him as hard as he can. that is my only point of contention with these plays. There are many ways of accomplishing the same goal, without this result. Had Kesler taken more of the body and done more a rub out, as opposed to the pasting(looking for proper descriptions here, and not having much luck), the result could easily have been the same, Morris out of the play, Kesler with the puck, nobody's forehead tatoo'ed to that glass panels, all is good. Great, safe hockey play, that at the very least, disrupts Morris' breakout.
If the player is not near the boards, or along the boards and facing you, not sideways, where he can turn away, but facing you,
by all means, I support option 'a' 100%.
Hit him hard and make him forget about the puck and worry about you, that is the logic for a bonecrushing check.
I don't know, these are all just my opinions, and as we saw, the refs called it. Some agree with the call, even if they thought the hit was okay, to me, that's the start. It'll make these debates less frequent, but the beauty is there are always things to debate.
|
| tbar |
Posted - 04/01/2010 : 12:29:06
Alex - A linesman can call any penalty resulting in 4 minutes or more.
I still think this is a good hit. But I am ok with the call as well.
As a ref I would be calling a 2 or 5 and a game ejection here in a Minor Hockey game. (I don’t know if the ref's in the NHL can eject a player while only calling a 2 minute minor). For me it’s a 2 minute due to Morris not appearing to be injured at the time of the hit.
To me the hit is NOT meant to hurt Morris. It is a good solid finished check. IMO Morris tried to reverse the puck and gave his numbers to Kessler and you see the end result.
I too am a firm believer that the player getting hit is just as responsible as the player throwing the hit. If I am coming to hit you DO NOT TURN AROUND.
Beans.......seriously Morris 100% had to know he was about to get hit he looked right at him.
One last thing as a player I will never skate 2 and a half feet away from the boards. I will skate right close to them so if I do get hit I don’t get my head violently thrown against the boards. This should be common sense for all players and something I teach the kids I coach. (this isn’t really relevant in this hit but it is relevant to the boarding penalty).
|
| ReyR |
Posted - 04/01/2010 : 10:12:10
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I still don't believe that Morris did turn his back. Stop the clock at :54 and tell me that Kesler does not already have contact with Morris and then click play and stop as fast as you can. You will clearly see that Kesler makes initial contact on the side or Morris under his left arm. Kesler then extends his right arm through the check which is what makes Morris kiss the glass.
Don't listen to the play by play, watch it with your eyes.
One more thing:
The onus is on the player (or goalkeeper) applying the check to ensure his opponent is not in a vulnerable position and if so, he must avoid the contact.
It is not Morris's responsibility to avoid the check, it was Kesler's as he was the player applying the check.
Severity dictated (according to the officials) that is was 5 and a game. I would rather see the refs err on the side of caution and lay the 5 and a game then not lay anything or 2 and watch the Coyotes head hunt for the rest of the game.
Still dead right call. This was not a straight up hockey hit. By definition of the rule, it was boarding.
That part is pretty clear.
Now, I think the punishment does fit the crime. 5 and a game and nothing more. Suspensions are for players that intend to injure. I do believe that this was simply an over agressive play by an agressive player on a forecheck.
Beans - I just gotta say that you should have included both sentences in your response. Why did you only focus on that one sentence from the rules and place full blame on the hitter? When the next sentence clearly states that the player being hit also has to avoid placing themselves in a vulnerable position?
The entire debate is in regards to who is ultimately responsible . You made some good points, but it weakens your points if it looks like you didn't take into account the rest of the rule that is relevant. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 04/01/2010 : 09:20:51
Fat_Elvis....
I understand where you're coming from and i agree with the fact that "driving the guy through the boards" isn't necessary. What we're seeing (IMO) though is guys progressively getting bigger and faster over the years and therefore either having the speed or size to increase the results of checks. Let's face it, what're Keslers options here:
a. Hit him hard as he can and hope to steal the puck and have Morris on his butt. This allows a free attempt towards goal.
b. Bump him, maybe enabling him to steal the puck and kill more of the penalty
c. Bump him and allow him to clear the puck up the boards or back around the net to a teammate
d. abort, try to stick check and return to a defensive postion to continue the PK.
While i won't argue that "d" would be fine, i will argue that "a" would be best for the Canucks. And i know you're gonna argue that if "a" is chosen, it should be done cleanly and i'll agree. It is my belief that Kesler attempted to do this cleanly in a way that he's been taught since he was first allowed to throw a body check. At no point do i think he tried to hit him from behind and force him face first into the boards. This goes back to what i alluded to earlier. If calls like this are going to be made, then players will have to change their games significantly! If that's what the league has decided, i can learn to live with that and accept it though i'd prefer to see hard nosed (but clean) hockey.
To your point of quote:
To me it means take the hit if you want, but if it's excessive to the ref, the call is there. What it doesn't say is that hitting isn't allowed.
i never intended to say hitting wouldn't be allowed. What i meant was that very few players, especially come playoffs, would risk a hit like this if a 5 and a game could be such an easy result. Again, this would change the way the game is played and it'd take me a little getting used to i suppose. It would def increase the speed and fluidity of the game, but i prefer to see a guy able to throw the body a bit more than i'm guessing it will amount to if these calls continue.
|
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 04/01/2010 : 01:36:27
Alex, I'll touch on my interpretation of a section of the boarding penalty briefly.
The first line and last line carry a more liberal interpretation;
'There is an enormous amount of judgment involved in the application of this rule by the Referees. The onus is on the player (or goalkeeper) applying the check to ensure his opponent is not in a vulnerable position and if so, he must avoid the contact. However, there is also a responsibility on the player with the puck to avoid placing himself in a dangerous and vulnerable position. This balance must be considered by the Referees when applying this rule.
Kinda gives some leeway here doesn't it.
To me it means take the hit if you want, but if it's excessive to the ref, the call is there. What it doesn't say is that hitting isn't allowed.
An aggressive forecheck has everything to do with forcing the puck carrier to hopefully make a bad play. Not sure when driving the guy through the boards became the pre-requisite.
I'm using the smiley face, hope others don't find that demeaning.....see, example of those moments of smartassedeness?, I refer to. |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 04/01/2010 : 01:24:57
Fair enough.
This particular hit is not the one that causes me to ask these questions, but it is one of the many as of late, that do.
Had this hit had more dire results, I am sure the discussion would be completely different, but such is the beauty of hindsight.
My concern has never, in any of my posts regarding these hits, and there have been many, had anything to do with anything other than to ask why these hits are;
- necessary with the position of the players involved
- necessary with the excessive force involved in conjunction with the postion of the players involved
- necessary as anything other than a malicious bodycheck with intent to cause havoc, as opposed to a legal hockey play
- necessary as part of the game, when lately the consequences are proving to be anything but beneficial to the game, and even less so to the players involved, with the suspensions and injuries these plays incur.
If these are not only questions, but reasons for why I support my stance, then I am not sure what else can reasonably be expected of me regarding my purported inability to give reason to my disagreement.
And as to my stance, on this particular hit,I only said the call was correct and am glad to see these calls made on these plays, anything further than that is someone putting words in my mouth.
Guest4624 it is presumptuous of you to assume you know my intentions when I post, my arms were down, and I never consider anyone stupid, I think I have posted with enough reparte for all to know that other than a smartass comment here and there I give all respect when it's due.
The reason I used the analogy of the apparently offensive Dad vs. Dad argument is simply to help illustrate the lack of rebuttal to my concerns about these hits, that's it.
I have asked the questions and given my reasons, I'm not asking anyone to agree, I am only lamenting the fact, that these plays are continuing, even with all the negative attention.
I'd welcome any of the aforementioned request for enlightenment for these types of hits to continue, but apparently instead of substantial debate, I have sparked emotion and am getting that response instead.
Please, I am not trying to fan flames here, I am just asking for reasonable response. There are no reasons for these type of hits. That is why it was called, in this case, a 5 minute major, after consultation amongst the referees. I am not sure where the issue against that lies.
The penalty structures are there, don't want a penalty? Don't make a play that brings the penalty call into action. Does that not simplify things?
If you have to think about whether the actions you are commiting to on the ice may result in a infraction, are you making the right play to start with? |
| n/a |
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 23:23:27
I am usually with you on the the bad hits discussions we have had in the past, Fat Elvis . . . but not this one.
Folks, some excellent comments here - let's keep out the personal attacks and keep the discussion on track.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Guest4624 |
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 23:11:54
quote:
Originally posted by fat_elvis_rocked
Why is it that the only recurring defense for these types of hits is the standard, 'if you take this away, then you have to take all hitting out', or 'all hits will be penalties then', or my favorite, 'it may as well be figure skating then'.
Please, and I point to no one in particular, if that's the best argument you can debate with, then you win, your dad is bigger than my dad, because it carries as much validity as that ageless classic.
And why is it that all you on the other side always say "wait til someone breaks a neck" or my favourite "he's going to kill someone some day" If you disagree then say you disagree and give your reasons, but don't call the rest of us who don't agree with you a bunch of children, it's insulting and you clearly intended it that way even from behind your smiley emoticon. If you can't defend your point then don't, but throwing your arms up in the air and yelling "well you're just stupid" is at least as bad as you're claiming us to be. You're a better poster than that! |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 23:11:30
BEANS
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Alex, I think you are arguing what you would like the points/rules to be, not what they are.
Yup, pretty much bang on, except for the fact that the boarding rule, as i noted above, clearly states that "there is also a responsibility on the player with the puck to avoid placing himself in a dangerous and vulnerable position." Now, if you see it as Kesler hit him from the side and somehow spun him face first into the boards, that could be different i guess, and i watched it again and i can see where you're coming from. I can live with that, but i really do feel that if they continue to lay ALL the blame on the hitter, the game is about to change.
As for your comments about "all is right", in this situation, we're saying that only because it didn't really cost the Canucks much if anything. Can you imagine if this were a team fighting for their playoff lives such as Calgary or Colorado? There's be some really pissed off fans, players and coaches i'd say.
Fat_Elvis
quote:
Why is it that the only recurring defense for these types of hits is the standard, 'if you take this away, then you have to take all hitting out', or 'all hits will be penalties then', or my favorite, 'it may as well be figure skating then'.
Please, and I point to no one in particular, if that's the best argument you can debate with, then you win, your dad is bigger than my dad, because it carries as much validity as that ageless classic.
I know you're not pointing to anyone in particular but i obviously am one of the ones you're referring to so i felt compelled to reply. I'm def not the one to use the figure skating analogy, but will own up to a comment along the lines of "all hits will be penalties" or something to that nature. The reason i said this is because if they're going to call the rules as they're stated, then clearly this is true. I don't care about "your dad / my dad" BS, read the rule and explain to me otherwise if you don't see my point. If you wanna know why this is the defense i use for my argument, look no further than the rule itself. It clearly backs that up. What i'm ultimately trying to get across is the fact that it will change the game drastically even if they don't call "every" hit. The hits like Kesler threw will forever be changed. How many guys are gonna forcheck aggressively if they have a 5 and a game to look forward to. Not many i'd guess. Now, if that's the sort of change to the game of hockey you want to see, good for you. I will admit, it will open the game up to a quicker display of skill, less contact and diminish the value of many players and i don't just mean goons. If this is the sort of change you want, we just won't see eye to eye on the matter. I got no prob with ridding the NHL of the Boogards, Parros', etc, but i don't wanna see the value of pk specialists and gritty 3rd and 4th line players/checkers disappear.
BTW, while typing this, i saw for the first time, the Camalleri bump. Yeah, i'm calling it a bump cuz if he'd gotten any more than 2 mins for that, i'd have been totally horrified.
Oh, and please send me tapes of some of these games you seem to have watched in years past where there were no cheap or questionable hits and no scrums? I'd love to see this game you speak of, you know, the one you miss???
GUEST9165
quote:
Here's my beef with all this. What's gonna happen when a guy really gets drilled from behind. I mean REALLY gets hit. And the reason for him not facing the hit is because he mishandled the puck and turned towards the boards to pick it up. Player coming in had to much speed and intended to knock the guy senseless, which SHOULD be taken as intent to injure. Player being hit is Ovechkin (by lets say Cooke), and he'll never be able to play again.
Very good point. This is kinda like what i was mentioning above to Fat_Elvis. I still feel that some blame lies with the guy being hit. To me, it's no different that a guy losing control mid ice, putting his head down to look for the puck and getting drilled. SOME blame has to lie with the guy getting hit as it's his responsibility to know his surroundings and the danger he faces at all times he has the puck!
Again, if a guy is already committed to hitting a player, what's he supposed to do? Without getting Elvis too riled up about "there'll be no hitting", no guy is gonna try to hit a guy near the boards EVER if he thinks the guy could turn at any point. I don't know how else to explain this or try to get anyone to understand it. Do you not think the forechecking and hitting / finishing a check is going to change in a HUGE way???
|
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 22:28:45
Why is it that the only recurring defense for these types of hits is the standard, 'if you take this away, then you have to take all hitting out', or 'all hits will be penalties then', or my favorite, 'it may as well be figure skating then'.
Please, and I point to no one in particular, if that's the best argument you can debate with, then you win, your dad is bigger than my dad, because it carries as much validity as that ageless classic.
5 and game is a pretty easy payment, to make the game smarter and safer.
PS. I was watching the Montreal, Carolina game, and wouldn't you know it. Cammalleri got 2 for a blatant hit from behind.
Makes me want to scream, 'what the f*ck is the matter with you guys!', to the NHL.
I don't profess to know any more about the game than anyone else, I played, I watch. I don't profess to being a daisy regarding the physical game. I certainly don't profess to suggest that hitting isn't a huge, positive part of the game.
I just don't get when this crap type of play became acceptable, or, when it's deemed not acceptable due to a discretionary call by the referees, it's become justifiable, and a bad call by said referees.
I guess I never will, and will have to settle for a 'told ya so' when the game loses someone for something this stupid, and I fear unless change happens, it's coming.
If I'm wrong, someone, please enlighten me, so I can watch a game without the useless scrums, the tense moments when I wonder if the player hit cheaply is all right, and enjoy the real game, I miss it dearly. |
| Guest9165 |
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 22:15:54
Alright guys, we clearly know that both players are in the wrong here. Morris shouldn't have turned, even to the slightest degree, but didn't have time to even brace himself for the hit, which is what caused the whole boarding incident. An overaggressive forecheck and a millisecond brain fart on Morris' part (or for any other play and player).
Most hits are like this and with all our new rule changes and the increased speed, it was bound to happen. Combine that with the fact that this is basically what has been going on in minor hockey in the last 10 years and you get players that only make it to the NHL on pure aggression. Unfortunately, the NHL will keep being filled with the Cormiers and others of the like, that play the game with reckless abandon.
Here's my beef with all this. What's gonna happen when a guy really gets drilled from behind. I mean REALLY gets hit. And the reason for him not facing the hit is because he mishandled the puck and turned towards the boards to pick it up. Player coming in had to much speed and intended to knock the guy senseless, which SHOULD be taken as intent to injure. Player being hit is Ovechkin (by lets say Cooke), and he'll never be able to play again.
What then?
I know it's another hypothetical situation, but I want you guys to think about this for a second. In business you don't plan for things to fix themselves and go along great, you plan for the absolute worst situation and find ways to fix it before it happens. Just look at the damage done from races to pucks just to save an icing...
Imagine the impact for kids, say your kids, playing at a 14-15 year old level and a player just runs around trying to hit everyone (as it already is in some cases, even enforced) and hits your son/daughter from behind. You spend the night in the hospital not knowing if he'll ever even get to play again, and the kid who did it, got a 2 minute boarding call...
You can't let the current state of the hits in the NHL set a precedent for hockey, it'll ruin itself from the inside out, or at least what little integrity it has left if you ask Don Cherry... So this call has to be made, if not for the respect of the game, then for the protection of it's players. If there is not hit, there is nothing to have to avoid.
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 21:48:00
Alex, I think you are arguing what you would like the points/rules to be, not what they are.
Again, I think the video, at the :54 - :55 second mark clearly shows that Kesler did not hit Morris from behind, he hit him from the side and spun him into the glass. That is what my eyes see anyways. I don't see Morris turning at all.
Ultimately, the refs agreed that it was boarding and that Morris did not turn. The NHL agreed that the refs applied a fair punishment and did not go further with any suspension, Vancouver ended up winning the game anyways, and Kesler will be back in the next game.
All is right in the world. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 21:04:42
Beans, not surprisingly, i'm shocked at your opinion of this incident. While i do agree it is "boarding" as per the rules, this again goes back to the whole debate about the actual definition of the rule! I'll come back to that later, after i pick apart your post . Just kidding, in fact to avoid another multi-page debate, i'll ignore most of which i vehemently disagree with and just touch on a couple things:
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Now, I loved that the officials got together and talked about it and made a decision. Awesome. That needs to happen more.
I'm good with that as well. However, NO CALL was originally being made by EITHER referee. First, with two refs, do we really need a linesman's opinion thrown in there? C'mon, there's two refs with different views of the incident and neither thought it was bad enough to call ANY penalty? Second, and don't quote me on this as it's something i heard and didn't research, but i understand that when a linesman is involved, he is only able to recommend a major. Perhaps this incident was worthy of a minor penalty but seeing as the refs hadn't called on on the play, they couldn't go back and call a minor after conversing with the linesman. Therefore, it was a major or nothing. Thirdly, aside from no penalty being given for a retaliation that resulted in a mini brawl / scrum, it's likely the Coyote's reaction to the hit had the typical "knee jerk" reaction which made the refs think maybe just maybe this hit was worse than we thought?
quote:
Turn the tables and have Kesler being the one getting hit and some would be calling for a suspension.
NEVER! Now, you prob won't believe this, but i could care less if it was Kesler being hit in this manner. You will see, it's only a matter of time before a Canuck makes the same move or similar and i will come on here and admit they're part to blame!
Here's the thing, it all boils down to the definition of the calls of "boarding" and/or "checking from behind"
Here they are again to review, including a link to the rules in case you want to read them in their entirety as i won't copy the entire thing.....
Rule 42 - Boarding
42.1 Boarding – A boarding penalty shall be imposed on any player or goalkeeper who checks an opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to be thrown violently in the boards. The severity of the penalty, based upon the degree of violence of the impact with the boards, shall be at the discretion of the Referee.
There is an enormous amount of judgment involved in the application of this rule by the Referees. The onus is on the player (or goalkeeper) applying the check to ensure his opponent is not in a vulnerable position and if so, he must avoid the contact. However, there is also a responsibility on the player with the puck to avoid placing himself in a dangerous and vulnerable position. This balance must be considered by the Referees when applying this rule.
Rule 44 - Checking from Behind
44.1 Checking from Behind – A check from behind is a check delivered on a player who is not aware of the impending hit, therefore unable to protect or defend himself, and contact is made on the back part of the body. When a player intentionally turns his body to create contact with his back, no penalty shall be assessed.
It could be argued that the Kesler hit was checking from behind, especially if you want to claim Morris had no clue he was coming, which i find beyond the realm of belief. Either way, look at that boarding penalty description. Please tell me your opinion. Does the wording not need to be tweaked? If not, we may as well take hitting out of the game. I'd venture to guess that 95% of all hits are at or near the boards and they could all be described as "violent" to some degree! That'd be a lot of boarding calls game in game out. Get your power play working! And be sure to tell Tambellini to resign Souray!
Anyway, i don't wanna get into a huge debate about this but in my mind, you can't take hits like this out of the game without taking hitting out of the game pretty much all together. What did you want Kesler to do? Determine that Morris "MAY" reverse the puck and therefore put himself in a vulnerable position, therefore not hit him? He's to decide this in a matter of seconds? If hits like this continue to be called like this, guys won't be able to chance a check like this and it will change the game of hockey drastically! At worst, i think if the ref's get together on a call like this, they should be able to call a minor penalty by coming to the conclussion that the "hittee" was part to blame. I'd like to think that a guy won't risk a major injury just to "take one for the team" however, you never know come playoffs!
I'm glad this didn't really have a major affect on the outcome as the Canucks went on to win anyway. It did hurt Kesler's chances to finish at a ppg pace though as it was obvious he was gonna pop in 6-8 points last night |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 20:28:18
I still don't believe that Morris did turn his back. Stop the clock at :54 and tell me that Kesler does not already have contact with Morris and then click play and stop as fast as you can. You will clearly see that Kesler makes initial contact on the side or Morris under his left arm. Kesler then extends his right arm through the check which is what makes Morris kiss the glass.
Don't listen to the play by play, watch it with your eyes.
One more thing:
The onus is on the player (or goalkeeper) applying the check to ensure his opponent is not in a vulnerable position and if so, he must avoid the contact.
It is not Morris's responsibility to avoid the check, it was Kesler's as he was the player applying the check.
Severity dictated (according to the officials) that is was 5 and a game. I would rather see the refs err on the side of caution and lay the 5 and a game then not lay anything or 2 and watch the Coyotes head hunt for the rest of the game.
Still dead right call. This was not a straight up hockey hit. By definition of the rule, it was boarding.
That part is pretty clear.
Now, I think the punishment does fit the crime. 5 and a game and nothing more. Suspensions are for players that intend to injure. I do believe that this was simply an over agressive play by an agressive player on a forecheck. |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 20:21:53
Wow, I'm all for eveyone having their opinions, but being entitled to such shouldn't distract from the B.S. that is quickly becoming the norm in today's NHL.
I'm shaking my head at all the long time fans who seem to be educated about the game, and for the most part prove their level of understanding and education about the game with numerous positive, well thought out posts over and over again.
These hits,(another one tonight in the Pittsburgh game, surprise, surprise), have never been a mainstay part of the game. I have been both a player and a fan of the game for at least 40 of the 45 years I have been plodding around this rock, and I have never been more dismayed with the physical nonsense that is considered 'good' hockey nowadays.
Either some people argue just for the sake of arguing, or there is a serious lack of sensibility in understanding what is right and wrong in professional hockey. I am at a loss, as to how anyone defends these malicious chickensh*t types of plays as good hockey, totally at a loss.
This is bloodlust, gladitorial crap, that should be frowned upon at the very least, if not outraged at, yet because it's hockey, sensible people continue to try and pull various allowances out of their backsides defending this part of the game.....
It's lucky I'm a happy go lucky old dude, otherwise I'd take up a couple of the more ridiculous rebuttals, whose only repose seems to always gravitate to either don't watch then, or it's always been this way, or the ever assinine, 'leave the game alone, it's fine'.
Sorry, if looks like bullsh*t, sounds like bullsh*t, smells like bullsh*t, it most likely ain't roses, no matter how you try to sell it.
I guess we'll have to wait until someone finally gets a broken neck or worse before common sense kicks in, but I guess the adage about common sense is true....it's not that common.
Awful, just awful |
| irvine |
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 20:12:48
When looking at a hit like this for me, the bottom line becomes...
When you take the puck and move towards the boards to protect it, prepare to be hit. Why do guys not expect to be nailed these days? They have the puck, they are out-maned, killing a penalty, they have to know somebody is looking to hit them.
No, he should not have to worry about guys coming from behind, but Kesler did not hit him from behind. We see Morris turn his head, expecting a guy to be coming in for the hit to the side (and it was coming), but he did not have himself in the proper position to be hit, even though he knew he would be... and all players should know.
Kesler comes in from the side, at an angle to me that is legal. Had Morris stayed in the position he originally was, without moving even more so towards the boards just before the hit, we'd not be having this conversation in my opinion.
I'm not say blame Morris here, but I am saying I see nothing wrong with the hit. Boarding? I can agree with that. I don't see it as boarding, personally, but I won't disagree with the call. In a situation such as this, a boarding call can be made. But anything more to me, is just keeping up with the recent madness.
Irvine/prez. |
| leigh |
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 18:26:52
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
OK, finally had a chance to watch the hit.
Absolutely, without question the dead right call. Both in defintion of the rule as well as what the NHL is trying to do to clean up the game.
Regardless of Morris seeing Kesler, there was NOTHING he could have done differently to avoid the hit. Secondly, Morris"turning his back" is complete crap. Kesler was on back of his shoulder right before the hit. Even if Morris turned his back(which I don't believe he did) it does not change the play at all.
Furthermore, I also counted 5 strided, basically from the goal mouth to the hit. Also, from the clip. Kesler is at the front of the net at the 0:02 mark and Morris's face is pasted to the glass at the 0:04. So in 2 seconds, you are telling me that Morris had the chance to look up, down at the puck, over his shoulder to Kesler, THEN turn his back all before getting hit???
Is Morris the Flash in his spare time??
I completely agree with 5 and a game for ANY player who makes a hit like this. Regular time, slo mo, anyway you look at it, it's ugly and it's definately boarding.
Turn the tables and have Kesler being the one getting hit and some would be calling for a suspension.
Now, I loved that the officials got together and talked about it and made a decision. Awesome. That needs to happen more.
-----------------------
Can't agree with you Beanie. But that's not a surprise since we have never agree on hitting in NHL hockey.
Morris saw him coming - He looked right at him at 3 seconds into the clip. If he didn't see him coming why did he turn back? The answer is he was trying to elude the checker, Kesler. If he didn't see him coming he would have kept skating up the ice as there was no attacker in front of him, it was clear sailing going forward. He knew he couldn't beat Kesler up ice because he had speed on him, so instead he turned his back as Kesler came in - and in the process Kesler caught him on the back half of his shoulder, yes the shoulder! This is a perfect example of a player knowingly turning his back to an attacker to elude the check. He probably assumed that since the Canucks were on a PK that he wouldn't hit him...wrong choice.
As for his strides, Kesler took strides because it is hockey and that is how you create mobility (no stride, no move) He coasted the last 6 or 7 feet (still well within the circle when he began coasting). It was a high speed hit and that's all. I'd even say boarding was borderline. Stop the video at 1:02 and look. They are beside each other and Morris is a foot off the boards a only fraction of a second before impact...and then Morris turned away. I'd love to see a frame by frame view of this but this video will have to do. Tell me Kesler could change his mind at that time. Doesn't even look like boarding to me.
I doubt that he'll get any supplementary discipline and that is exactly how I would have it. |
|
|
