| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
 Posted - 06/09/2011 : 07:12:04
|
My opinion is not different in this situation vs the Chara situation. I said on more than on occasion that Chara's hit was reckless and dangerous and I would have been fine with a suspension on that play. Go and take a read. I also think these two hits were very different in that Max P did not take 2-3 strides before Chara hit him. It was almost immediately after the puck left the stick when Chara made that hit.
If you would like to see someone who's opinion might have changed, you might want to look Slozo's posts on a player being culpable for their actions.......
Slozo, I am not exactly sure what you are asking?? Do you want me to go back and find the countless times you disagreed with the printed statements of the NHL or how many times you didn't take what was written in the NHL constitution regarding team relocations and team sales?? I'm sure I can find plenty. They are not that hard. How many "the count" ruined hockey posts have been made??
Finally, I do not understand:
Tell me Beans, how late was the hit to make it 4 games in the stanley cup playoffs, the finals, in fact?
I am pretty sure I answered that already. Let me post it again.
As far as this hit, ya it was late. By definition of any rule regarding hitting (boarding, charging, etc) it is the responsibility of the hitter, not the hittee. Sure, Horton was admiring his pass, but he also had a chance to push 2 or 3 strides before Rome hit him. If Horton could push 2-3 strides in there, then Rome absoutely had time to avoid the hit. The puck was long gone.
|
Edited by - Beans15 on 06/09/2011 07:20:11 |
 |
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2011 : 07:31:37
|
Let me start right off the bat by saying that, though I have a spoked B tatooed on my heaaaaart, and would not object at all if my little daughter got the same tatoo on her both her cheeks, I think the Chara thing was significantly worse than this.
I'll also say that I think Rome is a good guy and I feel bad for him, as I do for Horton too of course.
I don't think that this was "dirty" in any malicious way at all and agree that Horton bears a little responsibility, BUT, the hit was a bit late and Rome did slightly jump up (both skates are a bit elevated when contact is made). I say a one game suspension - maybe two.
Are these awful things that absolutely need to be dealt with harshly? No!
But, if we say no suspension for these sort of things, there is kind of "de minimus" standard applied. We treat them as things not worthy of much consideration and go into the "just a penalty, no suspension" way of thinking. And I think there might be a danger to that way of thinking. I mean, sure, you don't want players playing the game worrying about whether every little thing is going to lead to a suspension, but you don't want the opposite either - players playing the game knowing there is a certain leeway even to things that, as far as I understand, the league wants out of the game
- late hits (we can argue about seconds and strides and other calls but clearly to some degree this was late) and
- jumping up to make a hit (even slightly, clearly Rome to some degree elevated both skates - this might be at the "finishing your check" stage that Willus is talking about)
If players do know that leeway exists, probably subconsciosly more than consciously, they will play with a kind of "de minimus freebie pass" thing in mind. Not a good thing in my opinion, so handing out a minor suspension (1 or 2 games is VERRRRY MINOR as I think I have mentioned in previous posts) seems appropriate to me. 4 games does seem a bit excessive though, especially in light of other incidents.
Anyway, it's a really unfortunate incident for both guys and I wish them both well.
And, by the way, I almost asked a smoking hot babe on the train today to pinch me to make sure that I wasn't dreaming that the Bs are two wins away from the Cup!!!!
Actually,I just wanted her to pinch me regardless.
|
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2011 : 08:21:35
|
andyhack......thank you for a very refreshing, thoughtful and clearly unbiased post! I share a lot of the same sentiments as you. From everything i've heard, read, etc, Rome IS a good guy and i too doubt there was any intent for this hit to cause the damage it did! I too feel really bad for both of the guys involved and i too put responsibility on both of them.
I'd need to see the hit on my tv again with the PVR rather than youtube clips to determine if Rome leaves his feet before contact. With youtube, i just don't get the frame by frame slo-mo and find it hard to determine if it's just the impace that forces him to leave his feet, or if he does indeed jump into him. I do notice he "comes up" into the hit a bit, but is that him ducking down slightly to avoid hitting Horton's head and ensuring he gets his chest?
Like i said in another post the other day, at first look, including the replays, i didn't notice Horton's head having any contact with Rome and thought it was simply it hitting the ice that did the damage. However, when i looked back with my good 'ol PVR and the slow motion / pause button, you do see his head contacted. The only problem there is, and this will be interesting to see going forward with the talk of changing the headshot rule, Rome does extremely well to make Horton's chest his point of contact. It's through momentum though that as Horton's body is being slowed, his head continues forward and becomes involved in the hit. If this were a half a second early, we've all pretty much agreed it would have been a fantastic and legal hit. I just wonder if next year with the rule changes, will it still be?
I couldn't agree with you more that Rome prob deserved a game or possibly 2 max. How anyone can even argue this with what's out there to compare with is beyond me.
Here's what some people can't seem to grasp. YES, the league needs to step up their suspensions for illegal hits which lead to injuries. BUT, how in the world anyone can find it okay that they do this during the Stanley Cup Finals is way beyond me! Sure the NFL changed their headshot rule mid season, that's fine. But this compares to them making that change at halftime of the freakin' Superbowl!!! |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2011 : 09:12:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
Here's what some people can't seem to grasp. YES, the league needs to step up their suspensions for illegal hits which lead to injuries. BUT, how in the world anyone can find it okay that they do this during the Stanley Cup Finals is way beyond me! Sure the NFL changed their headshot rule mid season, that's fine. But this compares to them making that change at halftime of the freakin' Superbowl!!!
I have to say that this confuses me a little. From the start of the year the NHL has cracked down significantly harder on their discipline. From the Thornton hit to the Doan hit, things that would not have been suspensions in the past were suspensions now. Things that would have gotten 2 games before got 4 games this season.
This is not a change in any standard. No rule was changed, not protocol was changed. This has been happening since September. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2011 : 10:42:11
|
Beans, i appreciate the fact that the league actually made a small step or two in regards to suspensions this season, but i'm still amazed that anyone can consider this suspension anything but extreme when taking into consideration comparable hits during this post season and the lack of punishment thrown out for those.
Answer me this. Since when did the league adopt the policy to punish on the severity of the injury to the victim? I don't recall this happening really before but i may be wrong. There have been countless more dangerous hits this postseason that didn't result in injury but surely could have. So clearly the league, or Mike Murphy and whoever is assisting him, has suddenly adopted a new "standard" or "protocol" or whatever it is you want to call it. At least, that's the way i see it. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2011 : 11:05:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
Beans, i appreciate the fact that the league actually made a small step or two in regards to suspensions this season, but i'm still amazed that anyone can consider this suspension anything but extreme when taking into consideration comparable hits during this post season and the lack of punishment thrown out for those.
Answer me this. Since when did the league adopt the policy to punish on the severity of the injury to the victim? I don't recall this happening really before but i may be wrong. There have been countless more dangerous hits this postseason that didn't result in injury but surely could have. So clearly the league, or Mike Murphy and whoever is assisting him, has suddenly adopted a new "standard" or "protocol" or whatever it is you want to call it. At least, that's the way i see it.
Alex, I think the NHL has punished based on injury for a long time and that is one of the big problems. Look at Matt Cooke getting 17 games this year for an elbow??? He is a repeat offender but that is a big suspension.
I get the point that it's part way though the finals and the perception of a change in the standard would be viewed as unfair. However, don't do the crime if you don't want the time. This whole thing is avoided if Rome does not hit a player without the puck. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2011 : 12:51:28
|
Beans, i guess our opinions simply differ then. I see the Cooke incident as totally different. Not only is he a repeat (many times) offender, he threw a blatant elbow that could only be seen as an intent to injure. In Romes case, he made what would have been a clean hit had it occured 1 half second earlier! Even Murphy said this. I really don't think it's fair to compare the two in that regard.
I have no problem with them throwing stiff sentances to anyone who's main goal in a hit was to injure, but i don't see the Rome hit as being in that same category, not even close. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2011 : 13:13:06
|
I am not one of those guys trying to vilify Rome here. He has never been known as a dirty player. All I was pointing out with the Cooke piece was to answer the question as to when the NHL started getting more aggressive with their discipline. Again, not in any way comparing the two. Simply providing the answer to the question.
I still can't seem to find a single argument regarding the point that Rome could have avoided the check. Horton's 2-3 strides means Rome could have moved. That makes the check illegal, dangerous, and was not a hockey play. Is that not intent to injure??? Not saying it was malicious, but if we calling a spade a spade.......... |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2011 : 13:50:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I still can't seem to find a single argument regarding the point that Rome could have avoided the check. Horton's 2-3 strides means Rome could have moved. That makes the check illegal, dangerous, and was not a hockey play. Is that not intent to injure??? Not saying it was malicious, but if we calling a spade a spade..........
I've NEVER implied that Rome couldn't have avoided the check. Of course he could have. No one ever HAS TO throw a check. It's clear he wanted to hit Horton to take him out of the play but i don't believe for a second he wanted to do so late, nor have the result what it was.
What you're not seeing, or i'm failing miserably to explain is that this hit was less than .5 of a second late! It was THAT close to being 100% clean in today's NHL. IF what you're sayiing is that you'd like to see the rules changed so that we never see anything like this, that's fine, you're entitled to your opinion. But to say that because he could have avoided the check or because it was late, it was "dangerous, and not a hockey play", i can't fully agree. Of course it was dangerous, any hit really is is it not? But not a hockey play? I don't buy that.
If your "calling a spade a spade" comment is going back to comparing it to Cooke's being malicious, i simply don't agree. Cooke clearly intended to elbow a guy in the head. That is NEVER legal. Rome tried to throw a check that ended up being a split second late, otherwise it was completely legal (why do i feel like i've already said this 23 times/???)
"Intent to injure" is another topic i don't even wanna rehash as we've discussed this before. Personally i feel 99% of body checks are meant to hurt a guy. Not concuss him, not break his neck, etc, but to have a physical and mental affect on the hittee, to make him a little more tentative next time he's on the ice. It can change the way a guy plays and that's to the hitter's team's advantage! |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2011 : 14:12:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I still can't seem to find a single argument regarding the point that Rome could have avoided the check. Horton's 2-3 strides means Rome could have moved. That makes the check illegal, dangerous, and was not a hockey play. Is that not intent to injure??? Not saying it was malicious, but if we calling a spade a spade..........
I've NEVER implied that Rome couldn't have avoided the check. Of course he could have. No one ever HAS TO throw a check. It's clear he wanted to hit Horton to take him out of the play but i don't believe for a second he wanted to do so late, nor have the result what it was.
What you're not seeing, or i'm failing miserably to explain is that this hit was less than .5 of a second late! It was THAT close to being 100% clean in today's NHL. IF what you're sayiing is that you'd like to see the rules changed so that we never see anything like this, that's fine, you're entitled to your opinion. But to say that because he could have avoided the check or because it was late, it was "dangerous, and not a hockey play", i can't fully agree. Of course it was dangerous, any hit really is is it not? But not a hockey play? I don't buy that.
If your "calling a spade a spade" comment is going back to comparing it to Cooke's being malicious, i simply don't agree. Cooke clearly intended to elbow a guy in the head. That is NEVER legal. Rome tried to throw a check that ended up being a split second late, otherwise it was completely legal (why do i feel like i've already said this 23 times/???)
"Intent to injure" is another topic i don't even wanna rehash as we've discussed this before. Personally i feel 99% of body checks are meant to hurt a guy. Not concuss him, not break his neck, etc, but to have a physical and mental affect on the hittee, to make him a little more tentative next time he's on the ice. It can change the way a guy plays and that's to the hitter's team's advantage!
Bolded:
And that right there is the fallout the finish your check mentality has wrought.
Used to be you'd hit a guy and skate away with the puck. Not now. Now you have to make sure you finish your check to either hurt someone or intimidate.
One of those things I just described is a hockey play, the other a bullying tactic.
Which is better, puck possession or intimidation?
Sorry about rehashing.
|
Edited by - willus3 on 06/09/2011 14:12:53 |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2011 : 14:39:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
"Intent to injure" is another topic i don't even wanna rehash as we've discussed this before. Personally i feel 99% of body checks are meant to hurt a guy. Not concuss him, not break his neck, etc, but to have a physical and mental affect on the hittee, to make him a little more tentative next time he's on the ice. It can change the way a guy plays and that's to the hitter's team's advantage!
Bolded:
And that right there is the fallout the finish your check mentality has wrought.
Used to be you'd hit a guy and skate away with the puck. Not now. Now you have to make sure you finish your check to either hurt someone or intimidate.
One of those things I just described is a hockey play, the other a bullying tactic.
Which is better, puck possession or intimidation?
Sorry about rehashing.
Willus, i completely get what you're saying, but i wanna ask you this. Do you want to see ALL instances of guys "finishing checks" out of the game? If so, that's cool, it's a fairly big change to the game, but like i said, changes continue to be made all the time. |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2011 : 15:14:16
|
quote:
Alex, I think the NHL has punished based on injury for a long time and that is one of the big problems. Look at Matt Cooke getting 17 games this year for an elbow??? He is a repeat offender but that is a big suspension.
I think the Cooke suspension was based on reputation and history, not the injury that he actually incurred. And I certainly agree that suspensions have had a high correlation to history - the more often you're in front of the league, the longer your suspensions are going to get. |
|
|
|
OILINONTARIO
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
816 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2011 : 15:58:03
|
An unbiased opinion from the "non-orca side of the aquarium". The call and subsequent suspension were 100% reactionary. The Stanley Cup Final is a LOUSY time for the powers to try to make a point.
And that's all they were doing.
My immediate reaction to the replay was, "I've seen worse". I don't think anyone can disagree with that sentiment. My reaction to the news of the suspension, albeit tongue-in-cheek, was, "Maybe they want the game to be all friendly-like so that Sid will come play with us again."
Ridiculous. 5 minute major. Nothing more. Change the standards in the off-season.
BTW- 12-1 in two games? Ha! Ha! Ha!
The Oil WILL make the playoffs in 2012. |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2011 : 17:19:05
|
I probably shouldn't, but I am going to take the road less traveled here and say that the NHL got it right. I saw a dirty hit. Not a dirty player, probably not even intentional regarding the outcome, but, to my eyes anyways, a dirty hit.
A late hit, where he drove his shoulder, up and into the face of Horton. enough so that his skates left the ice at contact. Dirty and unnecessary.
As Willus pointed out, the only purpose of that check, was to 'finish the check', and as others pointed out, 'hit to hurt'. There was no hockey play there, in my opinion, and Horton would have had no scoring opportunity as the flow went on, if for no other reason, than Rome already had position on him, entering the defensive zone. Rome had to turn in to Horton to make the hit, slightly albeit, but still, turn in to.
I wonder how many of the recent rash of injuries are due to realistically clean hits, where a player got caught with his head down, and simply got lit up? It just seems that any time I see a hit causing injury lately, it's a bad/dirty/penalized/bad judgement /etc. situation. Doesn't that tell the bigger story?
I believe that the big hit is a valuable part of the game, and can be game changing, but lets' not confuse clean and legal, with questionable and highlight worthy. I would love nothing more than to see an occasional, game changing, clean hit, than night after night of this nonsense. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2011 : 05:18:51
|
Well said, FER. As always.
And to Alex, I completely get that it was 1/2 a second or whatever, but to your point of the game always changing, do the time even matter?? 10 yrs ago, maybe a late hit was 1 second. Today, maybe it's 1/2 a second. In 5 years, it might be .25 of a second. We are talking about a measure of time that can not be managed by a human(the Ref) watching the game at top speed. I still think the bottom line is the puck was gone and the hit was avoidable. This is not a situation where the puck carrier dumps the puck away as the hit is coming.
And as FER stated, most of these kinds of injuries are coming from hits that are borderline at best. No one complains at all when someone gets injuries from a real hockey play. The problem is that more and more injuries are happening from non-hockey plays and people (media, etc) trying to justify a play based in interpretation of a rule.
|
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2011 : 09:56:11
|
Beans, i apologize for this, but i'm not seeing your point. I don't even understand what you're trying to say at this point. I understand the point that you feel the hit was avoidable, and i agree. If your point is that the rules should change so that hits like this are totally illegal no questions asked, then say so. I won't agree but that's just difference in opinion.
Please don't come back with the "this wasn't a hockey play because it was late" bit either. My whole freakin' point is the fact that it was a hit attempted to make within the rules, that missed by a fraction of a second!!! Sure, that made it illegal, but lemme make a comparison. A guy is ready to recieve a pass when the defending player aggressively lifts his stick so he doesn't have a chance to get the pass. Oops, the defending player misses and his stick clips the guy in the face, and said player loses an eye. This is an illegal high stick, but not intentional! However, he was attempting to make a "hockey play" when this accidental incident occured. Do you see any similarity to what Rome did? He attempted to make a completely legal hockey play but ended up .5 seconds late which resulted in an interference penalty.
Do you see where i'm coming from? You're making it sound like Aaron Rome was intentionally trying to do something illegal. At least that's what i'm getting from what you're saying about it not being a "hockey play". |
|
|
|
Guest9920
( )
|
Posted - 06/10/2011 : 21:33:41
|
| torres was headhunting tonight |
|
|
|
Guest8149
( )
|
Posted - 06/10/2011 : 22:14:02
|
Well stated by Alex! I couldn't agree more with your point of view.
And for Beans to say that time doesn't matter is quite close to ridiculous, especially from an experienced poster. Hockey is a game played (and officiated) at a high rate of speed, and it's up to the players and officials on the ice to respect and understand this, which they do for the most part. Players make decisions at high rates of speed, and circumstances (i.e. players dipping when encountering a check, a stick is lifted as pointed out, etc., etc.) can change the intent and outcome dramatically!
And when major infractions happen, the league has the opportunity to break down the play milisecond by millisecond and determine whether supplementary discipline is in order, and sometimes they get it right and sometimes they get it wrong. (And oftentimes it's a matter of bias or point of view when the league "gets it wrong.")
I've watched an incredible amount of hockey to know that there are a number of predatory hits that result in no outcome (no penalty, no injury and no outcry), while there are a number of tecnically legal hits which result in plenty of attention which were less severe in intent and severity, except for the fact that a player was injured on the play.
Is it just me, or does anyone not see that there's a very fine line between how hits take place on the ice, the intent, outcome, and how people perceive things?
|
|
|
|
Utemin
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
451 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2011 : 12:57:56
|
Horton got PWNED. Im gunna get more hate from this post, but WTF wasn't Horton looking, from the start of his pass he was still watching it. Damn if horton got hit in his foot he would still be concussed(obviously not badly) It wasn't that bad, im always happy with Rome being gone, But it wasn't that late maybe half a second late. If the slash on Bieksa wasn't a suspension then why is this. Oh i know because they are trying to inplace the new head shot rule! It wasn't implied during the season why start in the Stanley cup final.
Don't hate me because i'm Beautiful |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2011 : 06:42:38
|
quote:
Willus, i completely get what you're saying, but i wanna ask you this. Do you want to see ALL instances of guys "finishing checks" out of the game? If so, that's cool, it's a fairly big change to the game, but like i said, changes continue to be made all the time.
Absolutely I would like to see that. |
Edited by - willus3 on 06/13/2011 06:43:34 |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2011 : 09:26:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
Beans, i apologize for this, but i'm not seeing your point. I don't even understand what you're trying to say at this point. I understand the point that you feel the hit was avoidable, and i agree. If your point is that the rules should change so that hits like this are totally illegal no questions asked, then say so. I won't agree but that's just difference in opinion.
Please don't come back with the "this wasn't a hockey play because it was late" bit either. My whole freakin' point is the fact that it was a hit attempted to make within the rules, that missed by a fraction of a second!!! Sure, that made it illegal, but lemme make a comparison. A guy is ready to recieve a pass when the defending player aggressively lifts his stick so he doesn't have a chance to get the pass. Oops, the defending player misses and his stick clips the guy in the face, and said player loses an eye. This is an illegal high stick, but not intentional! However, he was attempting to make a "hockey play" when this accidental incident occured. Do you see any similarity to what Rome did? He attempted to make a completely legal hockey play but ended up .5 seconds late which resulted in an interference penalty.
Do you see where i'm coming from? You're making it sound like Aaron Rome was intentionally trying to do something illegal. At least that's what i'm getting from what you're saying about it not being a "hockey play".
A final time, as the first 12 times I have said this must be confusing:
Puck is gone
Check is avoidable
equals
LATE HIT
That's it. 1/2 a second, 1/4 of a second, 3 seconds. Irrelevant. In some cases the players is already engaged in the hit and the puck is thrown away. This would not be a late hit. However, Horton drops the puck, takes 2-3 more strides, then gets smoked.
Late Hit.
Is that clear now?? |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2011 : 10:51:21
|
Beans, i'm just gonna assume, and wish that you'd have said it much earlier, that you agree with what Willus just answered to the same question i brought up with you days ago.
Maybe now we can be done with it. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2011 : 11:45:46
|
All I want is for the body check to be used for what it is supposed to be used for. That is, to separate a player from the puck. If the puck is gone than the hit is useless and should be heavily penalized. Regardless of it being less than a second or 3 seconds later. No puck, no body check.
If that is what Willus is saying, than I agree.
|
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2011 : 12:26:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
All I want is for the body check to be used for what it is supposed to be used for. That is, to separate a player from the puck. If the puck is gone than the hit is useless and should be heavily penalized. Regardless of it being less than a second or 3 seconds later. No puck, no body check.
If that is what Willus is saying, than I agree.
That's what I'm saying.
|
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2011 : 12:46:11
|
Willus/Beans.....
I'm cool with that. Like i said, it's a pretty big change, but changes are often needed as the game evolves / changes. Even if they did institute that as a rule though, there's always gonna be some judgement by a ref because in the case that you (Beans) mention, where a guy is already engaged in the hit, there's going to be that split second to decide if a guy was already "engaged" and committed to throwing the hit. That's not to imply that the Rome hit was one of those as i'd 100% agree that he could have bailed on the hit if this were the rule. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2011 : 13:49:25
|
It would be a big change, but not a change the NHL hasn't seen before. Much like how hooking, slashing, and holding were originally called as penalties then eroded into what they were before the lock out. Then, the NHL puts in clear language and enforces the rules and within a season or so the rules are back in effect.
The same could go for this. As far as the GM's taking the word ' blindside' out of the headshot rule, it's a joke. Simply, if the refs called boarding, charging, and other illegal hitting penalties as they are designed then a specific headshot rule would not be needed.
The rules are there, they just need to be enforced. But you are right Alex, there is always going to be some kind of judgement on certain calls. That's unavoidable. |
|
|
|
Pasty7
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2312 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2011 : 14:50:26
|
i agree with the idea of the change of mentality in finishing your check and punishing late hits more severly but you can`t just hand out 1 four game suspension in the stanley cup final and think players will take notice this is the kind of mentality change that the NHL has to sit down with the coaching staff and explain the new expectations and consequences, because one seemingly random suspension isn`t going change years of hockey mentality
"I led the league in "Go get 'em next time." - Bob Uecker
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2011 : 15:00:58
|
Pasty, you are preaching to the choir100% correct. As I said, the same way that clutching and grabbing was fixed can be employed with this. Get everyone together in the off season (coaches, GM's, ref) and break down what and how things will be called.
The 4 games did nothing other than ensure Rome does not play again in the finals. Could you imagine the outrage if this was a more prominent player?? A Kesler or Chara for example?? |
|
|
|
Pasty7
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2312 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2011 : 15:05:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Pasty, you are preaching to the choir100% correct. As I said, the same way that clutching and grabbing was fixed can be employed with this. Get everyone together in the off season (coaches, GM's, ref) and break down what and how things will be called.
The 4 games did nothing other than ensure Rome does not play again in the finals. Could you imagine the outrage if this was a more prominent player?? A Kesler or Chara for example??
for sure beano but i think we are in accord with this note the nhl has to highlight rules in this instance though not really create new ones
"I led the league in "Go get 'em next time." - Bob Uecker
|
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2011 : 15:40:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Pasty, you are preaching to the choir100% correct. As I said, the same way that clutching and grabbing was fixed can be employed with this. Get everyone together in the off season (coaches, GM's, ref) and break down what and how things will be called.
The 4 games did nothing other than ensure Rome does not play again in the finals. Could you imagine the outrage if this was a more prominent player?? A Kesler or Chara for example??
Doesn't this just bring us back to the whole question of whether or not 4 games was too harsh? And didn't you say it wasn't and that you'd have been ok if it had been even more? This last comment seems to say something different, no? |
|
|
|
Pasty7
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2312 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2011 : 16:28:47
|
just watching tsn hockey tonight , they were talking about the Torres on Seabrook hit back in the first round and why that is not a suspension but Rome on Horton was and the explanation was "behind the net is a hitting zone" Ray Ferrarow said he asked a bunch a players about the hitting zone being behind the net 5 being defenseman and none of them had ever herd of such a zone ,, today there was apparently a meeting including some players like Mike Cammalleri, the vice president of discplin Shanahan and a few Gm's like Newindyke were there discussing the hits they want taken out of the game, i think this comittee is going to have to sit down with each team and discuss the rules and the new zones and hits becaus clearly these players have no idea!
"I led the league in "Go get 'em next time." - Bob Uecker
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2011 : 22:00:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Pasty, you are preaching to the choir100% correct. As I said, the same way that clutching and grabbing was fixed can be employed with this. Get everyone together in the off season (coaches, GM's, ref) and break down what and how things will be called.
The 4 games did nothing other than ensure Rome does not play again in the finals. Could you imagine the outrage if this was a more prominent player?? A Kesler or Chara for example??
Doesn't this just bring us back to the whole question of whether or not 4 games was too harsh? And didn't you say it wasn't and that you'd have been ok if it had been even more? This last comment seems to say something different, no?
Maybe I wasn't clear. The 4 games makes Rome not play in the finals and I do think that the punishment fits the crime. However, discipline in any form is not only designed to punish the crime but also to deter the future actions of others. For the deterence factor, the 4 games means nothing.
Does that make sense?? I've had a few beers this evening, not sure if I am making sense. |
|
|
|
BucketHead
Top Prospect
Canada
78 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2011 : 22:30:45
|
| how hurt is he? his head seems to be able to handle screaming fans. not sure about you ppl but when i had a concussion i could not handle loud sounds like that. But i don't know Hortons head, but i don't like the length 2 games is enough. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2011 : 07:19:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Maybe I wasn't clear. The 4 games makes Rome not play in the finals and I do think that the punishment fits the crime. However, discipline in any form is not only designed to punish the crime but also to deter the future actions of others. For the deterence factor, the 4 games means nothing.
Does that make sense?? I've had a few beers this evening, not sure if I am making sense.
Blame it on the beers, good thing i didn't respond last night as MANY were consumed! 
So, back to the 4 games, are you saying it was sufficient for this hit, but not enough of a suspension to deter others from such hits? If so, i see what you mean, but unless they do as you and Willus prefer and remove these hits completely, i don't think ANY suspension will deter some guys from still throwing these. Again, i come back to just how close it was to being legal and therefore as long as it's legal, guys are gonna throw'em, esp borderline guys like Rome who feel they need to play with an edge to have a chance to be in the league in the first place! |
|
|
|
99pickles
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
671 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2011 : 21:11:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
Awesome comment, Oilin Ontario, funny stuff.
On the hit on Horton that Rome will start serving an eppic 4 game suspension for:
Clean hit. Maybe a bit late, but not so much to warrant a suspension, maybe a two minute minor for interference.
It was a hockey play, at the blueline, on a guy going faster than the hitter right after he dished off the puck. The play is to hit the passer and hopefully take him out of the rush, so it's a solid, no questions asked hockey play, and he should be congratulated for standing up a forward with a good clean check on the blueline - it's what coaches yearn for, and it's not always an easy play.
He never leaves his feet, he doesn't take a run, and Rome plays the body and not the head.
So for my money, Rome does everything 100% right, with perhaps the hit coming a bit late after the pass (for argument's sake - I wouldn't have called it late myself, but it's close).
Unfortunately, Horton pulls a Lindros, and in a big, important game in the playoffs - the finals, of all things - he comes in over the opponent's blueline and decides to look sideways and not pay attention after making a pass. This is just foolish, on his part, and I certainly wish him no ill will, but that is just not smart. And unfortunately, he pays dearly for it, and ends up getting stood up properly, and he smacks his noggin against the ice very hard.
Couldn't agree more! As a matter of fact, if this type of hit isn't hockey, then there are a lot of routine hits and bumps that need to be called as penalties now. Is this what we want?? Only light hitting??
|
|
|
|
Guest8149
( )
|
Posted - 06/22/2011 : 21:32:57
|
| Light hits - that sounds like women's hockey! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
