| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Pasty7 |
Posted - 06/14/2011 : 08:38:32
i guess i`m the only one because the officals on the ice did not see fit to penalize it, nor is anyone talking but i found it extremly dirty, and can`t believe it wasn`t at least penalized. It is clearly interference the puck is long gone and Boychuk gives Raymond and shot with his arms once he is against the boards in a very akward posisition,, this as i see was extremly dirty and a very rat like move here`s the best link i could find but it is not very good
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoSLSU4e1XQ
"I led the league in "Go get 'em next time." - Bob Uecker
|
| 40 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 06/20/2011 : 15:46:46
PC....i'm here, and i actually replied to your post last night but it must not have posted? Either i forgot to or it just didn't work?
Either way, i agree with most of what you said and we actually seem to be on the same page! I've pretty much been trying to say this entire time that it had everything to do with what i considered and overly harsh suspension to Rome! I know the NHL claims there no precedent setting when it comes to penalizing guys but if that's the case, it's one more thing they ought to think about changing!
Nice to see that if in fact your wife did suspend you, that she must have given you the Boychuk treatment rather than the Rome as you're back on here today.  |
| Porkchop73 |
Posted - 06/20/2011 : 15:41:36
I get it Pasty, no worries.
However, Alex must be away or he is just choosing not to respond
|
| Pasty7 |
Posted - 06/18/2011 : 15:53:40
quote:
Originally posted by Guest3212
quote:
Originally posted by BucketHead
it was dirty but the nhl is on bostons side, they won't suspend or do anything to them, that they have already proven night in and night out.
You need to take another look at this. Where is the dirt? Both players got tied up with each other and slid into the boards. Unfortunately Raymond got hurt. There was no late hit, no 2 or 3 ft run or slamming into the boards. I 'm grateful some refs are letting the players play and not calling all the silly penalties that are killing the game of hockey. Good luck next year Buckethead..Yes I am a Bruin fan.....
this is the comment i meant to direct my sarcasm at not porkchop
"I led the league in "Go get 'em next time." - Bob Uecker
|
| Pasty7 |
Posted - 06/18/2011 : 15:42:26
quote:
Originally posted by fat_elvis_rocked
Uhhhmm....pretty sure Pasty was being sarcastic there Bucket, he's the one who started the thread, and felt there should have been a call.
He's obviously, to me anyways, responding to Porkchops' very reasonable post about clarification of his stance, which I agree with as I have posted in my own way, but as Pasty, and a couple others here sometimes tend to do, when they have nothing of reason to rebut with, they sorta go all funky chicken on us, instead of validating another's reasonable assesments. Not an insult Pasty, and please don't take it that way, just what I think, and it's my opinion only. 
actually i was refering to a guest who commented that the two players just got tangled and sliped into the boards, And my sarcasm was just to point out that you cannot deny Boychuk was trying to hit Raymond. I m not gonna argu with Porkchop at least he acknowledges it was infact a late and a hit, my sarcasm was directed at those who think this was something that happens everyday and isn`t even a penalty, and that ref`s should let these kinds of plays happen
"I led the league in "Go get 'em next time." - Bob Uecker
|
| OILINONTARIO |
Posted - 06/18/2011 : 12:41:48
quote:
Now I have 3 more things to knock of the "honey do list" and I now have only 3 hrs to do them, all the married guys here will no the consequences I face if I fail. It would likely result in suspension of one thing or another and just like the NHL there seems to no consistency there either.
Oh, man, you took a break in the middle of the list? Automatic misconduct. And that "no consistency" comment, if she ever finds it, will cost you the real life equivalent of five and a game.
The Oil WILL make the playoffs in 2012. |
| Porkchop73 |
Posted - 06/18/2011 : 12:18:40
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
LIke i've already mentioned, i agree this was an unfortunate result for what i don't see as an intentionally malicious hit. However, i feel, and obviously the NHL doesn't, that the NHL set a precedent with the Rome suspension and had to at least look at this hit and maybe give him a game. Again, it all comes back to the Rome suspension being overly harsh. Had they given Rome 1 or 2 games, i'd be okay with this one getting 0 or 1. But when you have Mike Murphy saying what he did, he looks foolish for brushing this one under the rug IMO.
Sorry Alex, I was off doing #4 of the little lady's honey do list. I told her of my plan to sit at the computer all week but she just laughed. Apparently she does not understand the seriousness of this either.
I did not mean to insult anyone else with my comments, I simply felt insulted by yours but you have cleared that up so lets get back to it
What you have just admitted in your post is that a 2 min interference penalty should have been called. I am OK with that call.
BUT what you really have a problem with, and I put it in bold in your post, is the NHL. If Rome recieved such a harsh suspension for his play, then Boychcuk should have gotten something. In fact you state that you would have given no suspension or only 1 game had the NHL not done what it did to Rome.
Just so you know, I did not think Rome should have gotten suspension as well, good North/South hit IMO but that is another topic.
I too have problem with the way NHL does suspensions and pretty much for the exact reason you are saying, inconsistency. That is what bothers me. If they are consistent with their calls then none of us would be debating this his or any other. I will applaud the NHL for trying to crack down on head hits but they need to find the consistency in the way they do it. It will not be easy, this is a contact sport and I for one hope it stays that way.
I also have a problem with the players who can't seem to recognize a bad situation and maybe just let up a little bit. I know its a big boys game and it is a contact sport, but they do do not need to take each others head off to be an effective hitter in the game.
And Pasty, I can't believe I am going to acknowledge your comment but of course I do not think Raymond is wimp and faked a broken back, come on. It was a hard fought battle and he ended up in a bad position.
Now I have 3 more things to knock of the "honey do list" and I now have only 3 hrs to do them, all the married guys here will no the consequences I face if I fail. It would likely result in suspension of one thing or another and just like the NHL there seems to no consistency there either. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 06/18/2011 : 10:07:45
porkchop.....I'm assuming that my words came out wrong as i was not attempting to "chide" you. I guess i should have thrown in a  or something? My bad. I certainly don't expect you to "sit on the PUH forum all day, everyday" nor do i expect you to "devote all of my attention today and the rest of the week to wait for your posts so that I can provide feedback to you without having to get chided from you for it." , but your sarcastic attempts to insult others, including myself, is noted.
I obviously hit a nerve though as evident by your attempt to get to me by roasting the Canucks. Nice try, sure i'm disappointed, but really, at the end of the day, it's a sport, a game, a team i cheer for. Life is good still, and it will go on. I'm amazed you didn't mention the riots, which for the record, is the thing that's bothering me more than any Canucks loss ever could.
As for the hit itself, i've explained my point of view enough, it's there for you to read. Seeing as you're gonna be around all day and all week waiting for my posts, you'll have plenty of time to re-read this entire thread and see what not only i think, but others too. Oh, and don't forget to re-read the one you posted that i highlighted some parts of. That'd be the one that kinda started this whole thing considering the things you said in it are basically the same things that got Aaron Rome suspended.
quote:
Originally posted by Porkchop73
Alex, could you please point out he violation of any rule on the play.
Interference would be the first thing that comes to mind. Seems to me that Kerry Fraser agreed with that as well, no? Add to that the parts you admit about how Raymond was vulnerable, Boychuk "continued to drive him into the boards with more force than required", "Boychuck did not have to continue with the hit", and so on.......
Why are you still asking me about this stuff when you pointed it out yourself?
LIke i've already mentioned, i agree this was an unfortunate result for what i don't see as an intentionally malicious hit. However, i feel, and obviously the NHL doesn't, that the NHL set a precedent with the Rome suspension and had to at least look at this hit and maybe give him a game. Again, it all comes back to the Rome suspension being overly harsh. Had they given Rome 1 or 2 games, i'd be okay with this one getting 0 or 1. But when you have Mike Murphy saying what he did, he looks foolish for brushing this one under the rug IMO. |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 06/18/2011 : 10:04:09
Uhhhmm....pretty sure Pasty was being sarcastic there Bucket, he's the one who started the thread, and felt there should have been a call.
He's obviously, to me anyways, responding to Porkchops' very reasonable post about clarification of his stance, which I agree with as I have posted in my own way, but as Pasty, and a couple others here sometimes tend to do, when they have nothing of reason to rebut with, they sorta go all funky chicken on us, instead of validating another's reasonable assesments. Not an insult Pasty, and please don't take it that way, just what I think, and it's my opinion only.
|
| BucketHead |
Posted - 06/18/2011 : 09:05:37
that last bit was harsh, i don't actually wish for anyone to break their back.
|
| BucketHead |
Posted - 06/18/2011 : 09:04:24
pasty7, really you think he is faking it? thats low, kinda makes me sick, but that how ppl are, someone get injuried " they faked it". i hope one day you go through what raymond had to go through so understand that breaking your back is not hard. |
| Pasty7 |
Posted - 06/18/2011 : 04:38:15
Raymond must be a real wimp if he and Boychuk just got tangled and slid into the boards, i mean someone didn't drink their moo juice growing up that a simple rub against the boards caused him to break his back,,, he was probably fakeing to get a suspension anyway
"I led the league in "Go get 'em next time." - Bob Uecker
|
| Porkchop73 |
Posted - 06/18/2011 : 03:25:28
[/quote]
Willus, i'll ask you the same thing i asked PC who's statement you "agree with 100%". Please see below.......
I'm guessing PC hasn't been around since he posted, otherwise he's just choosing not to answer, but if you (Willus) agree with what he said, how can those things bolded above PLUS "Boychuk is at fault" but it's still not something that could be suspendable? I'm seriously not trying to stir the pot, i'm just curious as it fits pretty much everything Mike Murphy said about the Rome hit.
[/quote]
Sorry Alex, I don't always have time to sit on PUH forums all day, everyday. I have been celebrating the Canucks loss with great ferver and am just now recovering enough to read your always interested and captivating opinions here on PUH forums.
Anyways to clear up why I think the hit was not really suspendable hit. I think Boychuk was taking his man off the puck in the same type play that happens quite a lot in the NHL. To me it was sort of a rub your man out type of play. But Boychuk should have realized the position Raymond was in. It was a vulnerable position. I don't think that Boychuk realized that the puck had already carried on, he was focused on knocking Raymond off the puck and keeping him off the puck. He did not jump, target the head, sucker punch him, or any other infraction.
Boychuk did cause the injury and thats what I meant by he is at fault. I do not think he violated any rules while doing it.
Alex, could you please point out he violation of any rule on the play. I am not being a smart A$$ here, maybe I just plain missed the violation. Was it holding, maybe interference at best. I am sorry, but I just don't see anything to call. It is just unfortunate that Raymond got hurt.
We as fans get to see the play from a wide angle on TV or in the stands. Boychuk obviously did not know the puck had carried past and that he did not have to finish the play, he had alreayd done his job of taking Raymond off the puck. We all could see that. He especially should have recognized the vulnerability of the position Raymond was. I have rambled on but the bottom line is the players have to do a better job in situations like that where they can reduce the risk of injuries to one another.
The NHL also has to be a whole lot more consistent on its suspensions for illegal hits. If they were then most of us would be able to say for sure if this hit or any other hit was worth a suspension or not.
BTW, just for you, I am going to devote all of my attention today and the rest of the week to wait for your posts so that I can provide feedback to you without having to get chided from you for it.
And....I am sorry that your Canucks wilted like a flower in the hot sun and threw the Stanley Cup out the window. Must of been the injuries, maybe Luongo had a bad day. No matter, the Canucks will be strong for years to come, a dynasty I say. |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 06/17/2011 : 11:09:21
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
If there was no late hit . . . where, exactly, is the puck just before or during the hit?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
I am getting confused. Is there a hit in your opinion, or isn't there? I believe the guest's post was fairly clear that he/she didn't think there was a hit, as do I. How can there then be a 'during the hit?' for he/she, and myself to evaluate in regards to the puck position if we didn't see one?
There was no hit. There was the continuation of the entanglement's momentum in to the boards, is that the 'hit' you are referring to? I won't try and place words in anyone's mouth,er, keyboard, but I think I've been clear in a couple of my posts that this was not a play against the rules. Nasty outcome for sure, disrespectful play for sure, but not a 'hit', or a penalty.
Again, I'll reiterate, they were BOTH battling for position for the bouncing puck, they BOTH were guilty of interfering with each other's postion, therefore, I am assusming, carefully albeit, the non-call.
Had the league reviewed and suspended based on the disrespectful nature of the play, I could understand that, but not for a perceived penalty that wasn't called as such. The Rome suspension that some seem to want to use as the measuring stick?, this is a blurb taken from Murphy's press conference to explain his decision, and I am quoting just a section of it;
'Q. How can you set a precedent when every play is different?
MIKE MURPHY: Well, there are examples of plays that we would look at to help us consider where we're going with the judgment on this one. We did that. Some of the plays that were brought to my attention don't necessarily hold water in this particular case.
So this stands alone. You have to deal with it separately. Whether it's precedent or not doesn't concern me. Trying to do the right thing is what we did here. '
Here is the link to whole release.
http://hockeycop.blogspot.com/2011/06/mike-murphy-explanation-about-rome.html
I would have no problem if there were to be a supplemental suspension from the Boychuk/Raymond incident, but at least do it
based on what it was, unsportsmanlike and disrespectful play, instead of trying to cram it though on the heels of a situation that has little relevance. |
| n/a |
Posted - 06/17/2011 : 10:12:10
quote:
Originally posted by Guest3212
quote:
Originally posted by BucketHead
it was dirty but the nhl is on bostons side, they won't suspend or do anything to them, that they have already proven night in and night out.
You need to take another look at this. Where is the dirt? Both players got tied up with each other and slid into the boards. Unfortunately Raymond got hurt. There was no late hit, no 2 or 3 ft run or slamming into the boards. I 'm grateful some refs are letting the players play and not calling all the silly penalties that are killing the game of hockey. Good luck next year Buckethead..Yes I am a Bruin fan.....
If there was no late hit . . . where, exactly, is the puck just before or during the hit?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| BucketHead |
Posted - 06/17/2011 : 10:01:08
well then guest i guess you just dont see the extra little shove that he gave as raymond went into the boards, just to clarify i hate vancouver and boston they are the two teams i hate the most, i've been cheering for certain players but no team for about 5 years now. so i'm not watch with a bias unlike you guest 3212. |
| Guest3212 |
Posted - 06/17/2011 : 08:13:05
quote:
Originally posted by BucketHead
it was dirty but the nhl is on bostons side, they won't suspend or do anything to them, that they have already proven night in and night out.
You need to take another look at this. Where is the dirt? Both players got tied up with each other and slid into the boards. Unfortunately Raymond got hurt. There was no late hit, no 2 or 3 ft run or slamming into the boards. I 'm grateful some refs are letting the players play and not calling all the silly penalties that are killing the game of hockey. Good luck next year Buckethead..Yes I am a Bruin fan.....
|
| n/a |
Posted - 06/17/2011 : 04:54:36
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by Porkchop73
The real problem with this play was that Raymond was in a vulnerable position and Boychuk should have recognized it. Instead Boychuk continued to drive him into the boards with a more force then required. This was not one of those split second finish the hit type of plays. It was a weird sort of broken play where Boychuk decided to finish rubbing a player out. Boychuk had already done an effective job of keeping Raymond off the puck and with Raymond getting into a vulnerable position Boychuk did not have to continue with hit. IMO - Boychuck is at fault, not really a dirty hit, not really a suspendable type of hit, but a totally unnesescary hit.
Slozo, since you asked, I agree with the above statement 100%.
Which of course will set me off on another tangent. I'm going to try and curb it here though, but there is a complete lack of respect between the players. That play shows it.
Do you know there was a time when if a player was really hurt on the ice, even players from the other team would come over to see how the player was and if he was going to be ok? True story.
And here we are, agreeing once again, now that we clearly know each other's position.
On its own, without there having been a Rome 4 game suspension, I agree with you Willus - it should have been a penalty, maybe even a major penalty, but no suspension. And if the refs totally missed it, even though it took place right in front of one of them, and even though the guy had to be helped off and everything (with a broken back!!! What guts), still no call when they realised it was a real injury . . . then a one game suspension to "correct" the non call might have been appropriate, IMHO.
But, the Rome suspension DID happen, totally out of the blue and with no precedent. So there should have been some coninuity there in terms of discipline . . . but alas, it was not to be.
I totally agree about the lack of respect between players . . . it's sad to see.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Guest8149 |
Posted - 06/16/2011 : 21:55:40
Yes, it truly is a bizzaro world when we don't see things as Slozo does! Sorry Slozo - we will try harder! You definitely have a monopoly on wisdom after all! |
| n/a |
Posted - 06/16/2011 : 21:03:03
Here are the classy Boston fans, chanting "flopper" as Raymond lays on the ice with a broken back.
http://vansunsportsblogs.com/2011/06/14/bruins-fans-chant-flopper-at-injured-raymond/
Makes me sick. Classless fans.
And frankly, makes me angrier as a hockey fan, to see that ref standing right beside the effing play, it's clearly interference, it clearly cause injury, and he just ignores it.
Brutal.
Good link on the article though, thanks Alex. It's like I said before . .. I have no love for the Canucks, but it really is like bizarro world, where people are not somehow seeing things as I think they truly are.
I know it's done and over with, but . . . it's just brutal reffing, brutal call on the no suspension after you already set the precedent, brutal brutal brutal.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| BucketHead |
Posted - 06/16/2011 : 15:49:50
i agree with the that guy, to may question for the NHL. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 06/15/2011 : 14:13:36
Here's what i've been trying to say for a couple days now, just this guy says it much better / clearer........
http://vansunsportsblogs.com/2011/06/14/irresponsible-coverage-leads-to-irresponsible-behaviour/
Sure, he's local, maybe biased in his view, but he explains what i've been trying to say. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 06/15/2011 : 14:09:13
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by Porkchop73
The real problem with this play was that Raymond was in a vulnerable position and Boychuk should have recognized it. Instead Boychuk continued to drive him into the boards with a more force then required. This was not one of those split second finish the hit type of plays. It was a weird sort of broken play where Boychuk decided to finish rubbing a player out. Boychuk had already done an effective job of keeping Raymond off the puck and with Raymond getting into a vulnerable position Boychuk did not have to continue with hit. IMO - Boychuck is at fault, not really a dirty hit, not really a suspendable type of hit, but a totally unnesescary hit.
Slozo, since you asked, I agree with the above statement 100%.
Which of course will set me off on another tangent. I'm going to try and curb it here though, but there is a complete lack of respect between the players. That play shows it.
Do you know there was a time when if a player was really hurt on the ice, even players from the other team would come over to see how the player was and if he was going to be ok? True story.
Willus, i'll ask you the same thing i asked PC who's statement you "agree with 100%". Please see below.......
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Porkchop73
The real problem with this play was that Raymond was in a vulnerable position and Boychuk should have recognized it. Instead Boychuk continued to drive him into the boards with a more force then required. This was not one of those split second finish the hit type of plays. It was a weird sort of broken play where Boychuk decided to finish rubbing a player out. Boychuk had already done an effective job of keeping Raymond off the puck and with Raymond getting into a vulnerable position Boychuk did not have to continue with hit. IMO - Boychuck is at fault, not really a dirty hit, not really a suspendable type of hit, but a totally unnesescary hit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm guessing PC hasn't been around since he posted, otherwise he's just choosing not to answer, but if you (Willus) agree with what he said, how can those things bolded above PLUS "Boychuk is at fault" but it's still not something that could be suspendable? I'm seriously not trying to stir the pot, i'm just curious as it fits pretty much everything Mike Murphy said about the Rome hit.
|
| Guest4178 |
Posted - 06/15/2011 : 13:57:26
quote:
Originally posted by fat_elvis_rocked
"These types of battle for position, and take each other out of the play, type plays, go on numerous times throughout most games, This one just had a very, very unfortunate outcome. That's why I don't think it was called a penalty and if there was no injury, the play would have gone unnoticed.
The clip, to me anyways clearly shows Raymond as an equal engager? when they initially tie up, fighting for position, when chasing down the bouncing puck. That is why I take the stance I do, it can't be interference on one without being interference on both, hence, no penalty. "
I agree with FER's opinion. (Surprise – someone does agree with you.)
I've stated this before, but to paraphrase, there are numerous collisions, hits, near hits, which take place in an average hockey game, and it's just a matter of circumstances which cause certain outcomes. Too often we judge the outcome, and not the intent.
In these playoffs alone, I could find and show numerous times where the intent was worse, or where the play was more dangerous than the Boychuk hit on Raymond, but we're not talking about it, because really after all, it was more bad luck than anything else that Raymond was injured on this particular play. I feel bad for Raymond, but I really don't think Boychuk's play was dirty.
Just my opinion, and just like FEH or anyone else with an opinion, I don't expect it to matter more than anyone else's.
|
| willus3 |
Posted - 06/15/2011 : 13:22:10
quote:
Originally posted by Porkchop73
The real problem with this play was that Raymond was in a vulnerable position and Boychuk should have recognized it. Instead Boychuk continued to drive him into the boards with a more force then required. This was not one of those split second finish the hit type of plays. It was a weird sort of broken play where Boychuk decided to finish rubbing a player out. Boychuk had already done an effective job of keeping Raymond off the puck and with Raymond getting into a vulnerable position Boychuk did not have to continue with hit. IMO - Boychuck is at fault, not really a dirty hit, not really a suspendable type of hit, but a totally unnesescary hit.
Slozo, since you asked, I agree with the above statement 100%.
Which of course will set me off on another tangent. I'm going to try and curb it here though, but there is a complete lack of respect between the players. That play shows it.
Do you know there was a time when if a player was really hurt on the ice, even players from the other team would come over to see how the player was and if he was going to be ok? True story. |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 06/15/2011 : 11:43:57
Just to clarify further, what I actually said was,
'If this is the first time you have ever seen this type of play, you don't watch enough hockey.'
If that isn't taken out of context, I believe it to be a fairly accurate statement. These types of battle for position, and take each other out of the play, type plays, go on numerous times throughout most games, This one just had a very, very unfortunate outcome. That's why I don't think it was called a penalty and if there was no injury, the play would have gone unnoticed.
The clip, to me anyways clearly shows Raymond as an equal engager? when they initially tie up, fighting for position, when chasing down the bouncing puck. That is why I take the stance I do, it can't be interference on one without being interference on both, hence, no penalty. Again just clarification of my opinions and subsequent rebuttals.
I expect no one to agree with me, only to accept my opinion as just that.......damn, that really does sound civilized doesn't it?
I may have to go heckle some Utemin posts, just to feel like my old self again. |
| n/a |
Posted - 06/15/2011 : 11:28:51
Opinion noted Fat Elvis, fair enough. I strongly disagree . . . especially when you insinutated that if one disagreed with you they don't watch enough hockey or something like that . . . but I will take that as Fat Elvis being his humorous self, and nothing more.
Man we're being too civilised about this! I know . . . I can just wait until someone is in a vulnerable position, and then check them in the neck.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 06/15/2011 : 11:17:56
FER...... I'm totally fine with what you just said and realize you said you felt that way in your original post in this thread. What got confusing i think for Slozo, as well as me, was when you posted the bit later about it being no penalty (deserving) in your mind. At the time i didn't recall your original post. Clearly in your original post, you made it known that you didn't feel it was anything more than a routine play with an unfortunate outcome. Your opinion makes much more sense now! |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 06/15/2011 : 11:03:48
Understood Slozo, and I can indeed appreciate your take on the whole thing, as well as Pasty's, if there was indeed an infraction that caused the injury to Raymond, then yes, a subsequent suspension should be levied.
But....what if, and this falls in to the category of 'for most I think', I disagree that it was a penalty, for reasoning I already pointed out earlier, and agree that the Rome hit was called right, does that then invalidate my correction post?
I just don't see it the way some do, I think Rome broke a rule and got penalized properly, I don't think Boychuk broke a rule and didn't. For me anyways, simple as that. Unfortunate, debatable, arguable even, but certainly a valid opinion based on my thoughts and experience, and I only ask that it be considered as such. I have no illusions about changing anyone's mind about the whole deal, only that a differing thought not be dismissed.
Like I said to another poster, potato....potato(nope still doens't work), or maybe cucumber.
|
| n/a |
Posted - 06/15/2011 : 10:35:14
quote:
Originally posted by fat_elvis_rocked
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
Hear hear, Pasty.
Beans agreed with Willus wholeheartedly on the "finish your check" mentality when applied to Rome (wrongly, IMHO, but that's another thread). But if it may in some slight way benefit the hated Canucks? Forget it, excuses galore, including the awsome one offered up by Fat Elvis - "if the refs didn't call it, it didn't happen".
Priceless.
Btw, where is Willus on this one? Would like to hear his thoughts on it.
I am almost done trying to make people see double standards here . . . frustrating and fruitless.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Geez Slozo, you don't give a poster a break if they don't 'toe your line' do you. I wasn't offering up an 'awesome excuse' as you so poignantly put it, I was simply calling Pasty on his post and his reiteration of what he called 'facts'.
I simply offered up the actual facts, as they are, and said I agreed with them. Double standard? Not hardly, nobody asked what I would have thought had there been a penalty called and suspension did they? I made my point based on what was called, not what I thought should have been called.
Had there been a penalty and subsequent suspension, I would have been fine with that as well, for the record, and was only attempting to correct an incorrect representation of 'facts'.
Much like your frustration with your version of people's 'double standards', I feel the same for some's inability to read without pre-conceived inflection of the posts. I offer up thoughts as to why I think it's the right call, and the best some of the ardent retorters? can do, is rehash old threads and use other, completely incomparable examples as fodder? I agree, 'frustrating and fruitless', indeed.
Well, I don't give very many breaks, no . . . but that is because I hold you to a higher standard, my eloquent friend. I value your opinion, hence, I do hold you to a higher standard. Take it as a compliment!
You said this to Pasty - "...but, in my opinion anyways, the right calls, and any supplimentary disciplinary penalty, was done correctly." Calls, plural - so I gathered from that you referred to the correct call being made by the refs/NHL for penalty and/or suspension for both the Horton and Raymond hit.
And that's right after you say, "Rome got 5 and a game, and Boychuk didn't get called for an infraction. All rhetoric and opinon aside....those are the facts, hence the difference in outcome regarding suspension "
And that is a confusing line if you say this is just to straighten out Pasty on the facts. Especially since I agree with Pasty!
Yes, the refs called a major penalty on Rome, AND he got suspended for a record 4 games in the finals.
Yes, Boychuk did not get a penalty, and it appears, will not get suspended either.
But getting a suspension without there having been a penalty called on the ice has happened many times . . . so I certainly disagree with that justification being the reason why there is no suspension on Boychuk.
Missed calls happen all the time, and an incorrect non-call can certainly be corrected off the ice afterward by the supplementary discipline folks! Pasty's main point (and mine somewhat as well) is if the precedent has been set for record suspension due to a late hit on a "vulnerable" player, and one that causes significant injury . . . how in the hell does this Boychuk hit not fall under the same exact reasoning and logic and precedent?
This is what confounds me . . . logic is utterly absent here (in the NHL) on what reasons they do this or that for. It changes from day to day like clothing . . . one day it's throw out the book, make up new rules, and make precedent setting suspensions IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FINALS . . . the next day, it's no suspension for an even worse injury on a missed call for something that was clearly (for most, I think) interference on a player in a vulnerable position, one that caused significant injury.
That's the long and the short of it, Fat Elvis.
And I strongly disagree with what I take to be your opinion on you being fine with a suspension if there was a penalty, but then saying no suspension for the exact same thing if there is no penalty. I just don't get that . .. right is right, wrong is wrong, and in some cases, calls are missed, and the NHL can correct afterward somewhat appropriately.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 06/15/2011 : 10:30:50
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Alex, my view has not changed and I won't go into the details of what I think as I did that already to reply to Slozo's post.
My point with the Fraser thing was as a third party view, if you will. A guy who has the knowledge and experience to explain the call by the rule is what I found interesting. By the rules, I agree with Fraser. However, I don't agree with the rules. It's a very unique circumstance......
Beans, i think i follow exactly how you feel about it and didn't mean any sort of slight or negativity towards your thoughts in that little bit i wrote to Pasty. You originally said you could see an argument made for a suspension. After reading Fraser's take on it, you see it his way, that it fell within the rules and was nothing more than an unfortunate incident. I have no problem with that being your opinion, if i got it right?
Sadly, without the Rome suspension, i don't think most of us would be arguing this one. I think most of us Canucks fans are still pissed at the 4 games Rome got and are feeling that this incident, while not exactly the same, IS in fact similar in the way that Mike Murphy explained the Rome suspension. That's all.
Doesn't matter now, it's not gonna change anything at all. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 06/15/2011 : 10:14:03
Alex, my view has not changed and I won't go into the details of what I think as I did that already to reply to Slozo's post.
My point with the Fraser thing was as a third party view, if you will. A guy who has the knowledge and experience to explain the call by the rule is what I found interesting. By the rules, I agree with Fraser. However, I don't agree with the rules. It's a very unique circumstance...... |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 06/15/2011 : 10:08:37
quote:
Originally posted by fat_elvis_rocked
Sorry Alex, I'm probably going to confuse things even more then, I am assuming you mean that if one didn't think the Rome hit deserved a suspension, then this didn't either?
If that's what you mean, then here comes the confusion. In my opinion only, I stated in the Rome thread the right call was made, as I did in this thread.
Weird huh?
Sorry, it's me who's being confusing. I shouldn't have added in the part about the Rome suspension, i was more interested in the part where you said "Rome got 5 and a game, and Boychuk didn't get called for an infraction.......those are the facts, hence the difference in outcome regarding suspension.". That's the part i disagree with and explained why.
Sorry for the confusion.....
|
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 06/15/2011 : 10:00:51
Sorry Alex, I'm probably going to confuse things even more then, I am assuming you mean that if one didn't think the Rome hit deserved a suspension, then this didn't either?
If that's what you mean, then here comes the confusion. In my opinion only, I stated in the Rome thread the right call was made, as I did in this thread.
Weird huh? |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 06/15/2011 : 09:57:23
quote:
Originally posted by BucketHead
i give up because ppl see what they want to see and not what actually happened.
I think 11 posts in to your habitation here is a little early to be giving us the whole, 'we didn't see what actually happened', line. I like to think that's the whole point of coming to this forum, is to have, at times, differing opinions, and to debate our opinions. You say potato, I say....well...potato(it doesn't translate well online does it), and for all we know, we could be looking at a cucumber.
In this circumstance, I can certainly see where posters have the right to have an opinion differing, from what was called, I am just a bit dismayed, that anyone who doesn't agree with yours, gets essentially labeled as unable to 'see what actually happened'.
Not to worry though, you'll find that happens a lot in here. |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 06/15/2011 : 09:48:51
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
Hear hear, Pasty.
Beans agreed with Willus wholeheartedly on the "finish your check" mentality when applied to Rome (wrongly, IMHO, but that's another thread). But if it may in some slight way benefit the hated Canucks? Forget it, excuses galore, including the awsome one offered up by Fat Elvis - "if the refs didn't call it, it didn't happen".
Priceless.
Btw, where is Willus on this one? Would like to hear his thoughts on it.
I am almost done trying to make people see double standards here . . . frustrating and fruitless.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Geez Slozo, you don't give a poster a break if they don't 'toe your line' do you. I wasn't offering up an 'awesome excuse' as you so poignantly put it, I was simply calling Pasty on his post and his reiteration of what he called 'facts'.
I simply offered up the actual facts, as they are, and said I agreed with them. Double standard? Not hardly, nobody asked what I would have thought had there been a penalty called and suspension did they? I made my point based on what was called, not what I thought should have been called.
Had there been a penalty and subsequent suspension, I would have been fine with that as well, for the record, and was only attempting to correct an incorrect representation of 'facts'.
Much like your frustration with your version of people's 'double standards', I feel the same for some's inability to read without pre-conceived inflection of the posts. I offer up thoughts as to why I think it's the right call, and the best some of the ardent retorters? can do, is rehash old threads and use other, completely incomparable examples as fodder? I agree, 'frustrating and fruitless', indeed. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 06/15/2011 : 09:02:15
quote:
Originally posted by fat_elvis_rocked
Except for one fairly large difference. Rome got 5 and a game, and Boychuk didn't get called for an infraction. All rhetoric and opinon aside....those are the facts, hence the difference in outcome regarding suspension. We can say all we want about what coulda, shoulda, woulda, but, in my opinion anyways, the right calls, and any supplimentary disciplinary penalty, was done correctly.
FER, i can see how someone would have the opinion that this hit is not worthy of a suspension (depending on their thoughts on the Rome suspension), but i don't understand how anyone can claim it's not suspendable because no penalty was called on the play. The league has a way of reviewing things whether or not a penalty has been called. They often look at replays as it's not uncommon for a ref to either miss a play entirely or not see it for what it was in the heat of the moment or at the speed it was carried out. Because it wasn't a penalty in the game has little to do with whether or not it's suspendable!
It'd be like breaking your stick over a guys head behind the play where no official saw it and saying that because there was no penalty, let's just sweep it under the rug!
Pasty....i know what you mean, but as Slozo pointed out, Beans was not one of these people. Until Kerry Fraser's comments, he did agree it should be reviewed (at least that's what i assume he meant when he said "there's an argument for a suspension")?
quote:
Originally posted by Porkchop73
The real problem with this play was that Raymond was in a vulnerable position and Boychuk should have recognized it. Instead Boychuk continued to drive him into the boards with a more force then required. This was not one of those split second finish the hit type of plays. It was a weird sort of broken play where Boychuk decided to finish rubbing a player out. Boychuk had already done an effective job of keeping Raymond off the puck and with Raymond getting into a vulnerable position Boychuk did not have to continue with hit. IMO - Boychuck is at fault, not really a dirty hit, not really a suspendable type of hit, but a totally unnesescary hit.
PC.....just wondering if after reading the parts of your post i bolded if you can explain how it's not suspendable?
|
| letsdothis |
Posted - 06/15/2011 : 08:51:53
beans is what you might call a, ahem, disturber. |
| n/a |
Posted - 06/15/2011 : 08:23:23
Fair enough Beans, thanks for clearing up your point of view, I had misunderstood from other side arguments what your thoughts on this hit were.
We can argue in the other thread about poor "looks one way" Horton being vulnerable after just dishing off the puck on the rush in the offensive zone, and about a body check on that plaer being "malicious".
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 06/15/2011 : 08:17:09
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Just like Slozo will find a way to blame the ref just about every time. I'm sure the linemen must have done something for Luongo to let in 3 weak goals or that the ref's have something to do with the Canucks PP at less than 5% in the finals. From what I recall from Slozo's posts, every NHL ref in every game since the start of time is a Homer
Wait for it......
As far as this hit goes, it didn't look malicious to me, but it was illegal with a doubt. Boychuk doesn't need to push him into the boards. IMO this is another one of those 'finish your check' mentalities. I am interested to hear what the outcome of this is and the NHL's comments. This is clearly a situation of a missed call and something that produces an easy argument for a suspension.
Slozo, did you not see post I made??? Not sure what it says to you, but to me this says I agree this was a dirty hit and has an argument for a suspension. I do take exception to anyone who says this hit was anywhere near what the Rome his was. This hit did not have the meliciousness, the poor timing, or the blatant disregard for the safety of another player to the degree that the Rome hit had.
The issue, any only issue at hand with the Raymond hit was that he was in a vulnerable position. It was a late hit, it was interference, it was a situation of the 'finish your check' mentality. However, if there is no injury on the play, there is not even a thread to talk about this.
There is no double standard. I agree this was a dirty, late, and dangerous hit based on the vulnerable position of the player and that the hit was avoidable. |
| BucketHead |
Posted - 06/15/2011 : 07:14:48
i give up because ppl see what they want to see and not what actually happened. |
|
|
