| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 06/07/2011 : 09:48:17
Aaron Rome was just handed a 4 game suspension for his late hit on Nathan Horton.
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=368125
Personally, i'm surprised and expected 1-2 games as it wasn't a blindside hit, but still dangerous.
Thoughts? |
| 40 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| n/a |
Posted - 06/10/2011 : 05:36:30
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
The frustrating part of this for me is that everyone thinks these things are the way the game is supposed to be played. Many things have crept in to the game over time and become accepted. The unfortunate natural progression.
Willus, i missed a few things earlier including this (above) as well as your question about my age. To answer that first, i'm 40 and yes i did watch hockey pre 1990, in fact back as far as the '70's. Obviously i don't recall as much from the 70's and 80's as i do more recently, but from everthing i remember, there was "finishing your check" hits back then. No, not the Stevens type open ice ones or at least no where near as often but isn't that basically what you're saying above?
Things have crept into the game for sure, i agree. But it's also an ever changing sport with new, harder, better equipment, faster skaters, bigger bodies, sticks which allow for harder shots, etc, etc. All i've been trying to say from the start is that if they're gonna take these "hits after the pass" away, to be fair, they have to do it for not just the ones like we saw on the Rome hit. They have to take them ALL away and that's a big change to the game. If they wanna do that, fine, they've made many other significant changes through the years so i'm sure we'd all learn to live with it.
That's pretty much all i've been trying to say from the start before it got side tracked to the point where i believe Beans thought i was arguing one thing when in fact i was just asking him a question about finishing checks ( i'm pretty sure he thought i was talking about the big open ice hit's like Rome threw). I agree, those weren't as prevalent in the 80's but finishing your check on a dman has been around for as long as i can recall!
Hold up here - don't go tarnishing my boy Stevens, slow down partner. Look up his top ten ten, top twenty hits - all bone-crushing hits, he was a rock - and almost all are at his own blueline stopping a guy on the rush.
Kind of like the Rome hit.
I sincerely don't want to argue too long with Willus on this, as I do not want to give the impression I totally disagree with him on the "finish your check" mentality. I think I just disagree that this particular Rome check was that kind of check.
I will concede one point - it was, perhaps, over the top in force; but there is no way that warranted 4 games.
I'll put it to you this way: if Rome didn't notice that Horton didn't see him coming, it's a check that protects himself from being obliterated instead, as Horton is bigger, and is coming in at a greater speed.
If Horton is actually ready in any way for this hit,, I bet you Rome falls, not Horton. Think about it . . . how do you prepare to check a big guy like Horton coming in on the rush at a good speed? You sort of "let up" because he "might not notice you"? How often will the d-man get burned in this situation if he lets up?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 06/09/2011 : 13:37:00
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
The frustrating part of this for me is that everyone thinks these things are the way the game is supposed to be played. Many things have crept in to the game over time and become accepted. The unfortunate natural progression.
Willus, i missed a few things earlier including this (above) as well as your question about my age. To answer that first, i'm 40 and yes i did watch hockey pre 1990, in fact back as far as the '70's. Obviously i don't recall as much from the 70's and 80's as i do more recently, but from everthing i remember, there was "finishing your check" hits back then. No, not the Stevens type open ice ones or at least no where near as often but isn't that basically what you're saying above?
Things have crept into the game for sure, i agree. But it's also an ever changing sport with new, harder, better equipment, faster skaters, bigger bodies, sticks which allow for harder shots, etc, etc. All i've been trying to say from the start is that if they're gonna take these "hits after the pass" away, to be fair, they have to do it for not just the ones like we saw on the Rome hit. They have to take them ALL away and that's a big change to the game. If they wanna do that, fine, they've made many other significant changes through the years so i'm sure we'd all learn to live with it.
That's pretty much all i've been trying to say from the start before it got side tracked to the point where i believe Beans thought i was arguing one thing when in fact i was just asking him a question about finishing checks ( i'm pretty sure he thought i was talking about the big open ice hit's like Rome threw). I agree, those weren't as prevalent in the 80's but finishing your check on a dman has been around for as long as i can recall! |
| willus3 |
Posted - 06/09/2011 : 13:12:19
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
[quote]Originally posted by slozo
[quote]Originally posted by Alex116
What IS interference is a late hit on the guy who had the puck - and I get that many here think it was late (I don't think so, comparing it to other hits, myself).
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Bolded:
Maybe that's the problem. You are comparing from a standpoint that the league is trying to address not necessarily perpetuate.
|
| willus3 |
Posted - 06/09/2011 : 12:56:55
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
No, checking a guy who just had the puck is not interference. They are open to be checked. Any
What IS interference is a late hit on the guy who had the puck - and I get that many here think it was late (I don't think so, comparing it to other hits, myself).
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Yes, it is.
http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26348
Problem is many of the rules are subject to interpretation. Reading this rule I find it to be somewhat contradictory actually.
Willus, i agree that the wording in the rules is confusing and contradictory, but how is the following part that i've cut and pasted from the rules, not showing exactly what Slozo is talking about.......
" The last player to touch the puck, other than the goalkeeper, shall be considered the player in possession. The player deemed in possession of the puck may be checked legally, provided the check is rendered immediately following his loss of possession."
Seems this backs up exactly what Slozo was saying.
The problem with the clip i provided is it's unclear "when" a guy actually loses possesion. It says the last player to touch the puck is the one in possesion? Well, if a guy ices it and it's not touched for 7 or 8 seconds, i don't think he's still considered the guy in possesion, right? Like a lot of rules, it's worded pretty poorly and left for too much discretion.
Yes, it would be the interpretation of the word "immediately" in that sentence that is up for debate.
Now if you read down further about body positioning and picks you can argue interference in the situation Slozo put forth earlier.
|
| Alex116 |
Posted - 06/09/2011 : 12:47:43
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
No, checking a guy who just had the puck is not interference. They are open to be checked. Any
What IS interference is a late hit on the guy who had the puck - and I get that many here think it was late (I don't think so, comparing it to other hits, myself).
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Yes, it is.
http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26348
Problem is many of the rules are subject to interpretation. Reading this rule I find it to be somewhat contradictory actually.
Willus, i agree that the wording in the rules is confusing and contradictory, but how is the following part that i've cut and pasted from the rules, not showing exactly what Slozo is talking about.......
" The last player to touch the puck, other than the goalkeeper, shall be considered the player in possession. The player deemed in possession of the puck may be checked legally, provided the check is rendered immediately following his loss of possession."
Seems this backs up exactly what Slozo was saying.
The problem with the clip i provided is it's unclear "when" a guy actually loses possesion. It says the last player to touch the puck is the one in possesion? Well, if a guy ices it and it's not touched for 7 or 8 seconds, i don't think he's still considered the guy in possesion, right? Like a lot of rules, it's worded pretty poorly and left for too much discretion. |
| willus3 |
Posted - 06/09/2011 : 11:30:46
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
Willus: The "finish your check" mentality. Change that and you'll start to get somewhere.
I have agreed in the past on this with you, Willus - finishing your check on a guy against the boards when you already got the puck back or are transitioning to offense - it's a useless, non-hockey play. We are in agreement there.
But this was not "finishing your check", I'll contend. This was about taking out one of the guys on the rush, as they had the puck in the offensive zone and were a threat to score. Sure, Horton had just dished off the pass - but the check was to stop or slow that player from being in the play after that. It was to prevent a good scoring chance, which in my mind is a solid hockey play.
If this play is at centre ice . . . then yes, I am in full agreement with you, Wilus. But I sincerely see this as a solid hockey play to take out a guy from the rush and developing play. Even without the puck now, he was likely to get it back.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Bolded:
This is interference and is also a penalty.
The frustrating part of this for me is that everyone thinks these things are the way the game is supposed to be played. Many things have crept in to the game over time and become accepted. The unfortunate natural progression.
No, checking a guy who just had the puck is not interference. They are open to be checked. Any
What IS interference is a late hit on the guy who had the puck - and I get that many here think it was late (I don't think so, comparing it to other hits, myself).
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Yes, it is.
http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26348
Problem is many of the rules are subject to interpretation. Reading this rule I find it to be somewhat contradictory actually. |
| n/a |
Posted - 06/09/2011 : 11:20:20
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
Willus: The "finish your check" mentality. Change that and you'll start to get somewhere.
I have agreed in the past on this with you, Willus - finishing your check on a guy against the boards when you already got the puck back or are transitioning to offense - it's a useless, non-hockey play. We are in agreement there.
But this was not "finishing your check", I'll contend. This was about taking out one of the guys on the rush, as they had the puck in the offensive zone and were a threat to score. Sure, Horton had just dished off the pass - but the check was to stop or slow that player from being in the play after that. It was to prevent a good scoring chance, which in my mind is a solid hockey play.
If this play is at centre ice . . . then yes, I am in full agreement with you, Wilus. But I sincerely see this as a solid hockey play to take out a guy from the rush and developing play. Even without the puck now, he was likely to get it back.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Bolded:
This is interference and is also a penalty.
The frustrating part of this for me is that everyone thinks these things are the way the game is supposed to be played. Many things have crept in to the game over time and become accepted. The unfortunate natural progression.
No, checking a guy who just had the puck is not interference. They are open to be checked. Any
What IS interference is a late hit on the guy who had the puck - and I get that many here think it was late (I don't think so, comparing it to other hits, myself).
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 06/09/2011 : 10:55:39
Alex, I re-read my post several times and I didn't feel like there was anything confusing in what I said. I don't think I should have to defend everything I write numerous times. It is there, you can read it again if you wish. I do accept the apology and offer the same to you if I offended you.
Secondly, to Willus' point, I would also argue that pre-90's hockey did not have the 'finish your check' mentality to the degree that it does today. Hockey has always been a physical and often violent game. However, this attitude that some players have about needing to finish checks and play physical all the time is not that new. Using Torres as an example when he stated after he was suspended for the hit on Eberle, he commented that if he didn't play that way that he would not be in the league. In the 80's Oilers hay-day, things like this were so rare that one can easily forget the times they did happen. Even more telling is that when players did play reckless and dangerous, they would not be in the NHL for long.
However, all of us who are old enough can tell you every concussion that Lindros or Kariya have endured, not to mention the numberous more recent example. But how many people can give examples of killer hits that injured players even from the early 90's???
I do have to respectfully disagree that as a purist this has been around for ever. Consider that players were skating around without helmets for longer than that have had to play with them and concussions are increasing. This type of hit was a rarity prior to the early to mid-90's. |
| willus3 |
Posted - 06/09/2011 : 10:46:28
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
I think you may be taking the preaching to the choir thing the wrong way. No reason to really go off about that. He was saying he agreed with you. Why the hostility?
What i still don't get, because i guess i don't understand the way you answered, is whether or not you feel ANY "finishing your check" plays should be eliminated, and yes, i'm talking about the dman who's just passed the puck. If in fact you feel that should no longer be allowed, so be it, though i'd disagree as i'm more of a purist and that sort of play has been around forever.
Bolded:
Begs the question, how old are you? Have you watched any hockey, let's say pre 1990?
|
| Alex116 |
Posted - 06/09/2011 : 10:07:21
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
I think you may be taking the preaching to the choir thing the wrong way. No reason to really go off about that. He was saying he agreed with you. Why the hostility?
Willus, thank you for pointing this out. If that's what i've done (misinterpretted what Beans meant by his comment), then i will apologize for being wrong.
Beans, my apologies for the misinterpretation, though i have to say, it wasn't very clear the way i read it. Secondly, had you maybe mentioned it the way Willus did, it may have been put behind us soooer? Regardless, I read it / understood it as something else and unlike some people around here, i'm man enough to admit when i'm wrong.
What i still don't get, because i guess i don't understand the way you answered, is whether or not you feel ANY "finishing your check" plays should be eliminated, and yes, i'm talking about the dman who's just passed the puck. If in fact you feel that should no longer be allowed, so be it, though i'd disagree as i'm more of a purist and that sort of play has been around forever.
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 06/09/2011 : 09:09:41
Thanks Willus!! I appreciate that someone can understand what the comment "preaching to the choir" means. That is exactly what I was intending when I posted that, meaning that regardless of a forward getting hit or a defensemen getting hit, the mentality of having to finish a check is the issue. I was agreeing with the point of late hits on defensemen but I get accused of a number of other things following that.
Hence, I am done. What's the point of saying anything if you get attacked on various levels for agreeing with someone..........
Pasty, you are right. Fail.
|
| willus3 |
Posted - 06/09/2011 : 08:55:36
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Alex, it is clear that you are not looking to have a debate but slinging mud. I am not interested in that in any way, shape, or form. If you wish to disect every word of a post and put it in what ever context you like, so be it. Enjoy yourself. I am done.
Sure Beans, I'M the one trying to start something. Sure. Who was it that started into the whole "preaching to the choir" BS? Look at my post which that was a reply to and tell me where there was anything argumentative or where i tried to start something. I simply asked you a couple of questions which you either couldn't or didn't want to answer so you started in with your "preaching" comment. Seems to me that whenever the situation doesn't go your way, you throw in some little dig like that.
My post in response to that then goes to show that the whole "finishing your check" deal is LEGAL and LEGIT. How do you reply? You tell me that that's just my opinion. Here, in case you forgot, this is EXACTLY what you said: "Similarly, there is only one purpose for a body check in hockey. You may have a different OPINION, but based on the RULES and definition of a body check, it has one purpose and one purpose only."
I then prove this wrong, as well as your extremely poorly chosen comparison to tackling in football, and what do you do? You blame me for "slinging mud" and claim "you're done". It's the internet/forum equivalent of "damn, he's got me here, i can't just admit it, therefore i'll try to make it look like he's just trying to argue and i'll ignore him".
It just amazes me when someone can't admit they're wrong.....
I think you may be taking the preaching to the choir thing the wrong way. No reason to really go off about that. He was saying he agreed with you. Why the hostility?
|
| willus3 |
Posted - 06/09/2011 : 08:52:07
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
Willus: The "finish your check" mentality. Change that and you'll start to get somewhere.
I have agreed in the past on this with you, Willus - finishing your check on a guy against the boards when you already got the puck back or are transitioning to offense - it's a useless, non-hockey play. We are in agreement there.
But this was not "finishing your check", I'll contend. This was about taking out one of the guys on the rush, as they had the puck in the offensive zone and were a threat to score. Sure, Horton had just dished off the pass - but the check was to stop or slow that player from being in the play after that. It was to prevent a good scoring chance, which in my mind is a solid hockey play.
If this play is at centre ice . . . then yes, I am in full agreement with you, Wilus. But I sincerely see this as a solid hockey play to take out a guy from the rush and developing play. Even without the puck now, he was likely to get it back.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Bolded:
This is interference and is also a penalty.
The frustrating part of this for me is that everyone thinks these things are the way the game is supposed to be played. Many things have crept in to the game over time and become accepted. The unfortunate natural progression. |
| Pasty7 |
Posted - 06/09/2011 : 07:48:50
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Alex, it is clear that you are not looking to have a debate but slinging mud. I am not interested in that in any way, shape, or form. If you wish to disect every word of a post and put it in what ever context you like, so be it. Enjoy yourself. I am done.
As far Slozo's point of this not being a late hit, I simply disagree. As I stated previously, if Horton had a chance to take 2-3 strides after passing the puck than Rome had more than enough time to not make the hit. That, and that alone makes this a late hit.
fail
"I led the league in "Go get 'em next time." - Bob Uecker
|
| Alex116 |
Posted - 06/09/2011 : 07:44:06
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Alex, it is clear that you are not looking to have a debate but slinging mud. I am not interested in that in any way, shape, or form. If you wish to disect every word of a post and put it in what ever context you like, so be it. Enjoy yourself. I am done.
Sure Beans, I'M the one trying to start something. Sure. Who was it that started into the whole "preaching to the choir" BS? Look at my post which that was a reply to and tell me where there was anything argumentative or where i tried to start something. I simply asked you a couple of questions which you either couldn't or didn't want to answer so you started in with your "preaching" comment. Seems to me that whenever the situation doesn't go your way, you throw in some little dig like that.
My post in response to that then goes to show that the whole "finishing your check" deal is LEGAL and LEGIT. How do you reply? You tell me that that's just my opinion. Here, in case you forgot, this is EXACTLY what you said: "Similarly, there is only one purpose for a body check in hockey. You may have a different OPINION, but based on the RULES and definition of a body check, it has one purpose and one purpose only."
I then prove this wrong, as well as your extremely poorly chosen comparison to tackling in football, and what do you do? You blame me for "slinging mud" and claim "you're done". It's the internet/forum equivalent of "damn, he's got me here, i can't just admit it, therefore i'll try to make it look like he's just trying to argue and i'll ignore him".
It just amazes me when someone can't admit they're wrong..... |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 06/09/2011 : 07:05:33
Alex, it is clear that you are not looking to have a debate but slinging mud. I am not interested in that in any way, shape, or form. If you wish to disect every word of a post and put it in what ever context you like, so be it. Enjoy yourself. I am done.
As far Slozo's point of this not being a late hit, I simply disagree. As I stated previously, if Horton had a chance to take 2-3 strides after passing the puck than Rome had more than enough time to not make the hit. That, and that alone makes this a late hit. |
| n/a |
Posted - 06/09/2011 : 05:01:29
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
Slozo, i'm okay with a suspension for the hit on the basis that it was definitely a little late. The main problem i have is the length. First off, the longest suspension up to this one in the finals has been 1 game! 1 single game, and the reason for this i believe is the weight of a Stanley Cup Final game being worth far more than a regular season game. On the radio today, i believe it was Keith Jones who said, "usually 1 playoff game is worth 3 reg season games, AND, 1 SC Finals game is worth 4". That equates to roughly a 16 game suspension for what Mike Murphy agreed would have been a legal hit if it wasn't late.
As far as it being late, i've heard it measured at .85-1 seconds after the pass. The league (Murphy) said that .5 seconds is acceptable. This wasn't Dale Hunter attacking Pierre Turgeon 8 seconds after he scored while he was celebrating. This is Aaron Rome making a decision in a fraction of a second to make a big hit. If in fact it was .85 seconds after the allowable time, one has to realize just how small .35 of a second is!
Either way, it was late, it's suspendable and i think the league needs to start sending a message. However, the Stanley Cup Finals is not the time to begin such a message! Are they from now on going to punish as a result of the injury to the victim? They sure as he77 didn't with the Chara hit on Pacioretty! They didn't on anything Savard's been clobbered with! Etc, etc. IF, that's their new plan, so be it, but i have a funny feeling when Shanny takes over next year, the suspensions will be closer to the inconsistent crap we've gotten used to than they will to this blatantly overdone one we're seeing now.
Alex - you bring up the exact point I had to make to several people I talked to in the last few days about this . . . I also measured the time, and myself (going on you tube and pressing pause at puck release, then marking down time, then stopping at hit, marking down time) saw it as under a second, in the .8 range if I remember.
When you actually measure it, and THEN compare it to other "late hits" that have received suspension . . . it doesn't even come close to measuring up. In fact, go look up all the really late hits that didn't get suspension, and most are later than the one we saw on Horton.
Which is why I continue to contend that it deserved no suspension at all. I mean, I understand the psychology of the severe injury, it's in Boston, it's one of the top players for the Bruins - ok, maybe the ref gives a 5 minute major instead of the warranted 2 minute minor.
But it is in no way a dirty hit, and that is the key point.
Willus: The "finish your check" mentality. Change that and you'll start to get somewhere.
I have agreed in the past on this with you, Willus - finishing your check on a guy against the boards when you already got the puck back or are transitioning to offense - it's a useless, non-hockey play. We are in agreement there.
But this was not "finishing your check", I'll contend. This was about taking out one of the guys on the rush, as they had the puck in the offensive zone and were a threat to score. Sure, Horton had just dished off the pass - but the check was to stop or slow that player from being in the play after that. It was to prevent a good scoring chance, which in my mind is a solid hockey play.
If this play is at centre ice . . . then yes, I am in full agreement with you, Wilus. But I sincerely see this as a solid hockey play to take out a guy from the rush and developing play. Even without the puck now, he was likely to get it back.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 06/08/2011 : 23:53:46
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Well Alex, your new 'go to' is to try to entice people into an argument by stomping along a personal comment or backhanded compliment, but it's not going to work. I would like to challenge you to find more than maybe a handful of my 6000+ posts where I say 'preaching to the choir' or anything along those lines.
Beans....Do you really feel that i'm the one trying to start an argument? Why don't you spend a second, read my original post and answer the freakin' questions. You know, like "When then, did "finishing your check become illegal?". You do understand what that means right? Cuz by your response, i wouldn't guess so? Do you or don't you see guys hitting guys after they've passed the puck? FYI, it's LEGAL, up to a certain amount of time which is simply decided by the referee! If you haven't seen this, you don't watch hockey. If you have and are still confused, you don't "understand" what "finishing your check" means. Please lemme know where you stand just for clarification.
BTW, i need not look through your 6000+ posts to find your "preaching to the choir" comments. I know they're there, you know they're there, and so does everyone else. 
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
It's just like a tackle in football. There is only one purpose for a tackle in football and that is to the end the play. No other purpose is served in the game of football. Hence the NFL cracking down on hits that have the intent to injury players.
Really? REALLY? REALLY? You didn't just go there did you? Ever seen a guy throw a tackle which is intended to strip the ball from the ball carrier and not simply "end the play"? No, surely this could never happen, right??? I shouldn't even have to reply to that comment as you must not watch football if that's all you see! S'okay, this is a hockey forum. Maybe you don't watch football, but trust me, i do A LOT and if you wanna bring comparisons into this between the two sports, i'm more than happy to enlighten you on the game of football!
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Similarly, there is only one purpose for a body check in hockey. You may have a different OPINION, but based on the RULES and definition of a body check, it has one purpose and one purpose only.
Care to supply me with this "definition of a body check"???
Ah, nevermind, here's one for you.....
Wikipedia: An important defensive tactic is checking—attempting to take the puck from an opponent or to remove the opponent from play. Stick checking, sweep checking, and poke checking are legal uses of the stick to obtain possession of the puck. The neutral zone trap is designed to isolate the puck carrier in the neutral zone preventing him from entering the offensive zone. Body checking is using one's shoulder or hip to strike an opponent who has the puck or who is the last to have touched it (the last person to have touched the puck is still legally "in possession" of it, although a penalty is generally called if he is checked more than two seconds after his last touch). Often the term checking is used to refer to body checking, with its true definition generally only propagated among fans of the game.
That bolded part couldn't possibly mean you can hit a guy without the puck can it? No, no way. I mean, you made it pretty clear that bodychecking is only used to "separate a guy from the puck" so it can't be true.
Here's one i found on this site called NHL.com, you may have heard of it???
Possession of the Puck: The last player to touch the puck, other than the goalkeeper, shall be considered the player in possession. The player deemed in possession of the puck may be checked legally, provided the check is rendered immediately following his loss of possession.
Hmmm, seems to me that this one also says you can hit a guy when he doesn't have the puck.
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
To answer your question, yes. If you didn't see it the last post I provided directly to you in response, I stated:
That is the same 'finish your check' mentality. If the puck is gone, so is the hit. Period. It doesn't take the physicality out of the game, it makes it possible for players to be safe in a physical game. Injuries will never go away but they can be managed a lot better than they are today.
This goes for defensemen and forwards.
How in the world this answers ANY question i asked is beyond me. Perhaps i don't understand the cody you speak in? This came as a reply to my two questions, those being:
1. When then, did "finishing your check become illegal"?
and,
2/3. Haven't teams and coaches alike always preached / taught players to do just that, "finish your check"? Is that not a term you hear every year by players and coaches come playoff time when they are asked about how they may be able to wear a team down???
Care to explain how your response answers any of this???
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Just wondering if there is anything unclear about this opinion. If so, please let me know and I will clarify anything you wish.
Need i list anything else you need to clear up? Prob not, this should keep you busy enough...... |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 06/08/2011 : 20:19:45
Well Alex, your new 'go to' is to try to entice people into an argument by stomping along a personal comment or backhanded compliment, but it's not going to work. I would like to challenge you to find more than maybe a handful of my 6000+ posts where I say 'preaching to the choir' or anything along those lines.
It's just like a tackle in football. There is only one purpose for a tackle in football and that is to the end the play. No other purpose is served in the game of football. Hence the NFL cracking down on hits that have the intent to injury players.
Similarly, there is only one purpose for a body check in hockey. You may have a different OPINION, but based on the RULES and definition of a body check, it has one purpose and one purpose only.
To answer your question, yes. If you didn't see it the last post I provided directly to you in response, I stated:
That is the same 'finish your check' mentality. If the puck is gone, so is the hit. Period. It doesn't take the physicality out of the game, it makes it possible for players to be safe in a physical game. Injuries will never go away but they can be managed a lot better than they are today.
This goes for defensemen and forwards.
Just wondering if there is anything unclear about this opinion. If so, please let me know and I will clarify anything you wish. |
| Open_Ice |
Posted - 06/08/2011 : 18:08:40
I'm surprised by the suspension, but neither team can really argue against it. Boston is happy and when it comes down to it Vancouver got quite a good trade off in my opinion... |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 06/08/2011 : 16:28:42
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Alex, you are preaching to the choir. That is the same 'finish your check' mentality. If the puck is gone, so is the hit. Period. It doesn't take the physicality out of the game, it makes it possible for players to be safe in a physical game. Injuries will never go away but they can be managed a lot better than they are today.
This goes for defensemen and forwards.
Beans, i'm not preaching to any choir, in fact, i'm not preaching period. I'm simply asking if that's what you mean, that finishing your check on a dman should be illegal as well? FYI, it's not at this point and the whole attitude that a body check is "meant to separate a guy from the puck" is wrong as well. Lemme qualify that, because that is one use of a body check. It's not the ONLY reason a body check has been used as a tactic in a game.
"Preaching to the choir" seems to be your new "go to" when you don't wanna give a proper answer to the questions posed, of which there were many in my post. No where am i saying the hit was legal or that he shouldn't have been suspended or that the Canucks got burned, etc, etc, so where does your "preaching to the choir" come in?
Preaching? Heck, before you know it, i'm gonna be on a freakin' soapbox! Pfffffft....... |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 06/08/2011 : 16:08:26
Alex, you are preaching to the choir. That is the same 'finish your check' mentality. If the puck is gone, so is the hit. Period. It doesn't take the physicality out of the game, it makes it possible for players to be safe in a physical game. Injuries will never go away but they can be managed a lot better than they are today.
This goes for defensemen and forwards. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 06/08/2011 : 15:28:19
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
A body check is designed to remove the player from the puck. Any time a hit does anything other than this, it should be punished severely. Only at that point do I see true change.
But as long as there are people who have this 'must finish my check' mentality, than needless and pointless injuries will occur.
Beans, my question(s) to you would be this. When then, did "finishing your check become illegal"? We (those on PUH) have gone through similar discussions in the past year + pretty much after every devastating hit, especially if it results in injury.
Haven't teams and coaches alike always preached / taught players to do just that, "finish your check"? Is that not a term you hear every year by players and coaches come playoff time when they are asked about how they may be able to wear a team down???
Finishing your check isn't the issue here, it's the fact the hit was late by less than half a second and resulted in a serious injury. Like i said before, if Horton sees this coming, he skates away with little to no hurt and we aren't talking about this. Do you agree?
Also, if they wanna take "finishing their checks" outta hockey, fine by me, but they gotta start punishing the forwards who slam a dman into the boards often well after 1 second after the guy passes the puck. Why isn't it called a penalty then? Because 99% of the time the dman knows / sees it coming, braces for it, absorbs it and isn't seriously hurt by it!
I've seen dmen hit at least a second and a half after dishing the puck and even though they see it coming, get hurt. Usually something minor like a tweaked knee or jammed wrist from absorbing it poorly and i've never seen a suspension let alone a penalty!!! |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 06/08/2011 : 15:16:30
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
Terrible, terrible, wrong wrong wrong.
Should be no suspension . . . why suspend for a clean hockey check that might have been a bit late? The player was already OVER-penalised on the play . . . and obviously the bad injury because of Horton playing foolishly was a huge mitigating factor, plus it was in Boston. Hey, I wish no ill will towards Horton, but keep yer head up when crossing the blueline after you just dished off the puck, dude!
Rome should have received a 2 inute minor, that's it.
The NHL has gone mad.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Or perhaps they are beginning to understand that if you are going to solve the head injury issue you have to start at the root cause. Or one of the root causes anyway.
Which root cause, Willus?
Bodychecking?
Or hits deemed to be a bit late?
Please be clear, as I don't see how anything Rome did was a root cause of hits to the head and the rise in concussions (supposedly).
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
The "finish your check" mentality. Change that and you'll start to get somewhere.
Absolutely could not agree any more. There has not been a more simple and impactful post on this site in literally 5 years.
A body check is designed to remove the player from the puck. Any time a hit does anything other than this, it should be punished severely. Only at that point do I see true change.
But as long as there are people who have this 'must finish my check' mentality, than needless and pointless injuries will occur.
|
| foolpittier |
Posted - 06/08/2011 : 14:58:02
all i seen was a guy watching his pretty pass as he crossed over to the center of the ice , when he turnned his head , romes sholder was there . yes, it was alittle late... but horton has to keep his head up , this is the stanley cup finals, the guy with the beard is mean. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 06/08/2011 : 14:28:23
Slozo, i'm okay with a suspension for the hit on the basis that it was definitely a little late. The main problem i have is the length. First off, the longest suspension up to this one in the finals has been 1 game! 1 single game, and the reason for this i believe is the weight of a Stanley Cup Final game being worth far more than a regular season game. On the radio today, i believe it was Keith Jones who said, "usually 1 playoff game is worth 3 reg season games, AND, 1 SC Finals game is worth 4". That equates to roughly a 16 game suspension for what Mike Murphy agreed would have been a legal hit if it wasn't late.
As far as it being late, i've heard it measured at .85-1 seconds after the pass. The league (Murphy) said that .5 seconds is acceptable. This wasn't Dale Hunter attacking Pierre Turgeon 8 seconds after he scored while he was celebrating. This is Aaron Rome making a decision in a fraction of a second to make a big hit. If in fact it was .85 seconds after the allowable time, one has to realize just how small .35 of a second is!
Either way, it was late, it's suspendable and i think the league needs to start sending a message. However, the Stanley Cup Finals is not the time to begin such a message! Are they from now on going to punish as a result of the injury to the victim? They sure as he77 didn't with the Chara hit on Pacioretty! They didn't on anything Savard's been clobbered with! Etc, etc. IF, that's their new plan, so be it, but i have a funny feeling when Shanny takes over next year, the suspensions will be closer to the inconsistent crap we've gotten used to than they will to this blatantly overdone one we're seeing now.
|
| willus3 |
Posted - 06/08/2011 : 12:18:21
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
Terrible, terrible, wrong wrong wrong.
Should be no suspension . . . why suspend for a clean hockey check that might have been a bit late? The player was already OVER-penalised on the play . . . and obviously the bad injury because of Horton playing foolishly was a huge mitigating factor, plus it was in Boston. Hey, I wish no ill will towards Horton, but keep yer head up when crossing the blueline after you just dished off the puck, dude!
Rome should have received a 2 inute minor, that's it.
The NHL has gone mad.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Or perhaps they are beginning to understand that if you are going to solve the head injury issue you have to start at the root cause. Or one of the root causes anyway.
Which root cause, Willus?
Bodychecking?
Or hits deemed to be a bit late?
Please be clear, as I don't see how anything Rome did was a root cause of hits to the head and the rise in concussions (supposedly).
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
The "finish your check" mentality. Change that and you'll start to get somewhere. |
| Guest2771 |
Posted - 06/08/2011 : 11:21:41
It was a clean hit just like the Chara hit on Max P was, only difference was that Rome was Penalized for it and Chara wasn't. I see absolutelly know differece at all. |
| n/a |
Posted - 06/08/2011 : 11:13:59
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
Terrible, terrible, wrong wrong wrong.
Should be no suspension . . . why suspend for a clean hockey check that might have been a bit late? The player was already OVER-penalised on the play . . . and obviously the bad injury because of Horton playing foolishly was a huge mitigating factor, plus it was in Boston. Hey, I wish no ill will towards Horton, but keep yer head up when crossing the blueline after you just dished off the puck, dude!
Rome should have received a 2 inute minor, that's it.
The NHL has gone mad.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Or perhaps they are beginning to understand that if you are going to solve the head injury issue you have to start at the root cause. Or one of the root causes anyway.
Which root cause, Willus?
Bodychecking?
Or hits deemed to be a bit late?
Please be clear, as I don't see how anything Rome did was a root cause of hits to the head and the rise in concussions (supposedly).
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| willus3 |
Posted - 06/08/2011 : 10:54:13
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
Terrible, terrible, wrong wrong wrong.
Should be no suspension . . . why suspend for a clean hockey check that might have been a bit late? The player was already OVER-penalised on the play . . . and obviously the bad injury because of Horton playing foolishly was a huge mitigating factor, plus it was in Boston. Hey, I wish no ill will towards Horton, but keep yer head up when crossing the blueline after you just dished off the puck, dude!
Rome should have received a 2 inute minor, that's it.
The NHL has gone mad.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Or perhaps they are beginning to understand that if you are going to solve the head injury issue you have to start at the root cause. Or one of the root causes anyway.
|
| n/a |
Posted - 06/08/2011 : 07:50:53
Terrible, terrible, wrong wrong wrong.
Should be no suspension . . . why suspend for a clean hockey check that might have been a bit late? The player was already OVER-penalised on the play . . . and obviously the bad injury because of Horton playing foolishly was a huge mitigating factor, plus it was in Boston. Hey, I wish no ill will towards Horton, but keep yer head up when crossing the blueline after you just dished off the puck, dude!
Rome should have received a 2 inute minor, that's it.
The NHL has gone mad.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 06/07/2011 : 19:52:10
quote:
Maybe they dress 7 dmen and double shift some guys to fill in on the 4th line. I'd be okay with that!
I think they should dress 7 dmen regardless - dress Tanev, Ballard, and Alberts. Some insurance at this point in the season is not a bad thing - the Canucks simply cannot afford to go down to 5 dmen with so much on the line. It might have worked in the regular season against MIN or COL, but not now, against BOS.
To make room, drop Tambellini, and double-shift Hansen on the 3rd and 4th line - he can handle the combined minutes. |
| Oilearl |
Posted - 06/07/2011 : 17:34:13
Absolutely shocked  no way should this have been more than 1 game and then it's too much!!
Scott Stevens would have never finished a season or series if the rules were called this way during his playoff runs. I'm more than a little frustrated with the inconsistent calls all the way through these playoffs. The players must be confused by now as to what they will be penalized for...... |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 06/07/2011 : 17:33:33
Tons of speculation that both Tanev and Ballard could be dressed and Alberts sat. The coaches have liked the Ballard / Tanev combo as they find they've played well together but the dilemma will be whether or not to take out the big body in Alberts? Maybe they dress 7 dmen and double shift some guys to fill in on the 4th line. I'd be okay with that! |
| FutureKesler |
Posted - 06/07/2011 : 17:01:22
This is just nuts! Rome shoulda gotten a 1-2 game suspension, not a 4 game one. If Ballard can step in and play like he was expected to all year and the Nux win the cup, do think anybody will care about his mediocre regular season?
Ryan Kesler is a BEAST! |
| leigh |
Posted - 06/07/2011 : 16:38:37
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
Keep wondering about Hamhuis. If he were "done", i'd think they'd announce it, no? I know they like to hide the info and all, but like Boston has done with Horton, if he's done for sure, wouldn't they announce that? Hamhuis did make the trip to Boston, so i have to assume he's working on making it back before this series is done.
As you've said they never announce someone's true condition in the playoffs - unless it is advantageous to do so. In Horton's case it is advantageous to announce he is done for the season because it influences the decision on Rome. In Hamhuis' case the Canucks gain nothing by calling his season over...so they leave it a mystery. Makes sense. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 06/07/2011 : 13:13:25
I don't like Tanev coming in at this point. He is not the most physical defenseman, and not the most physically mature either (6'2, 182lbs). BOS and VAN have been pounding the crap out of each other, and he's going to take some pretty big hits. Ballard is better able to play that sort of game IMO.
As for Ballard - I too have liked what I've seen from him in the limited action he's had. He's not been the best defenseman, but he's certainly been better than, say, Rome, or Alberts IMO. He is clearly in the doghouse though, and I don't see him in Vancouver next year thats for sure. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 06/07/2011 : 12:57:09
sensfan.....I've like what i've seen in the limited roll Ballard has played, BUT, he has made some glaring mistakes too. I guess the coaching staff has seen those same glaring mistakes (and prob more) and feel he's not one of their best 6 options.
0763....Ballard WAS brought in to play. However, not necessarily the top pairing. He came into the season coming off a serious injury, had a slow start and a few other injuries along the way. He's never really "found his game" here in Vancouver, at least not consistently to this point. They also didn't anticipate Tanev being as good as he is, this soon. Had they known that Tanev would be able to play at this level and had they known they were going to get Hamhuis, i doubt they'd have traded for Ballard.
Any way you look at it, they have depth they always lacked in the past and it could come in very handy in the next week! |
| Guest0763 |
Posted - 06/07/2011 : 12:33:46
thought ballard was brought in to play, thought he was suppose to be a first liner? seems like a waste to sit the guy after all the hype. |
| Sensfan101 |
Posted - 06/07/2011 : 12:27:34
quote:
Originally posted by just1n
Now Ballard will get his chance I guess. I'm assuming Hamhuis is pretty much done.
I heard that Tanev would get the chance before Ballard. This surprises me a lot has Ballard really been that bad?
You miss 100 percent of the shots you don't take Wayne Gretzky |
|
|
