| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
sharksfan44
Rookie
Canada
228 Posts |
|
|
50brent
Top Prospect
Canada
62 Posts |
 Posted - 02/09/2010 : 14:59:51
|
| i think its a clean hit the guy had his head down this is what coaches tell there players to do if their heads down let him have it. also no penalty on the play so i say no suspension should be enforced. |
Edited by - 50brent on 02/09/2010 15:13:36 |
 |
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2010 : 17:14:44
|
No, not dirty. Unfortunate but not dirty. No direct contact to the head to me means no intent to injure.
Shoulder to shouler, head was down. The worst of it came from the kid landing face first on the ice.
I don't believe there was even and penalty called on the call.
This is a prefect example of a hockey hit that will hurt people from time to time. Not like the direct head shot type. I have no issue with this hit. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2010 : 17:24:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
No, not dirty. Unfortunate but not dirty. No direct contact to the head to me means no intent to injure.
Shoulder to shouler, head was down. The worst of it came from the kid landing face first on the ice.
I don't believe there was even and penalty called on the call.
This is a prefect example of a hockey hit that will hurt people from time to time. Not like the direct head shot type. I have no issue with this hit.
Ditto..... looks to me like it was shoulder to shoulder with no head shot whatsoever? I too have no problem with this hit! |
|
|
|
redneck76ca
Rookie
186 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2010 : 17:33:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
No, not dirty. Unfortunate but not dirty. No direct contact to the head to me means no intent to injure.
Shoulder to shouler, head was down. The worst of it came from the kid landing face first on the ice.
I don't believe there was even and penalty called on the call.
This is a prefect example of a hockey hit that will hurt people from time to time. Not like the direct head shot type. I have no issue with this hit.
Ditto..... looks to me like it was shoulder to shoulder with no head shot whatsoever? I too have no problem with this hit!
I watched the clip a couple of times and Carter's shoulder does catch the head of Salmela on the follow through. This is the perfect exmaple of a good clean hit where there isn't any head hunting. Shoulder to shoulder hit where the momentum of the hit causes Carter's shoulder to catch him on the chin. Nothing wrong with this hit but I still hate to see people knocked out. |
|
|
|
redneck76ca
Rookie
186 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2010 : 17:35:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by redneck76ca
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
No, not dirty. Unfortunate but not dirty. No direct contact to the head to me means no intent to injure.
Shoulder to shouler, head was down. The worst of it came from the kid landing face first on the ice.
I don't believe there was even and penalty called on the call.
This is a prefect example of a hockey hit that will hurt people from time to time. Not like the direct head shot type. I have no issue with this hit.
Ditto..... looks to me like it was shoulder to shoulder with no head shot whatsoever? I too have no problem with this hit!
I watched the clip a couple of times and Carter's shoulder does catch the head of Salmela on the follow through. This is the perfect exmaple of a good clean hit where there isn't any head hunting. Shoulder to shoulder hit where the momentum of the hit causes Carter's shoulder to catch him on the chin. Nothing wrong with this hit but I still hate to see people knocked out.
I looked at it another couple of times. Its not the follow through of the shoulder that moves Salmela's head but actually the force of the hit that causes his head to be bobble headed. Big, clean hit with an unfortunate outcome. |
|
|
|
Guest7309
( )
|
Posted - 02/09/2010 : 17:39:04
|
try not to post the same thing twice
lol |
|
|
|
50brent
Top Prospect
Canada
62 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2010 : 17:44:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest7309
try not to post the same thing twice
lol
ummm i dont belive he did post the same thing twice maybe read both posts next time. |
|
|
|
irvine
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1315 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2010 : 18:15:16
|
I do believe the hit was clean, but I also believe the hit came slightly late from a frustrated Carter knowing the puck went in the net.
Carter was in motion, but I believe he could have let up too. He knew Salmela scored, albeit very soon after the goal, the hit came. But I think it was a bit late.
Irvine/prez. |
|
|
|
polishexpress
PickupHockey Pro
525 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2010 : 22:16:01
|
Ya, the hit was just a little bit late, but couldn't you argue he was finishing his check? Isn't that what you are supposed to do to intimidate the opposition and protect your net, all the more so given the fact Salmela was in a dangerous scoring position when he was initiating the hit?
I don't really like hits when the player has let go of the puck, but finishing a check is within the rules, and Carter had already initiated the hit before Salmela release the puck. Carter hit him literally a split second too late, only slow-motion replays make it appear that the hit was late.
Besides, what if the puck hadn't gone in, and there was a rebound? Carter had just eliminated a threat. Unfortunate hockey play, nothing else. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
carter hit 
