| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
 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?
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2011 : 09:58:17
|
That is harsher than I thought it would be. Suspending someone for 4 games of the finals is huge.
Interestingly, the NHL took into consideration how seriously Horton was injured on the play as a mitigating factor - I don't recall the seriousness of the resulting injury coming into play when a suspension is handed out. I mean, if Horton gets up from that hit, does it make the hit any less illegal? |
Edited by - nuxfan on 06/07/2011 09:58:48 |
 |
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2011 : 10:13:30
|
That's always been an issue nuxfan, the old "eye for an eye" theory of the hitter should be out as long as the victim. I'm not saying that's what they did here, but it looks as though the result def had a play in the ruling! As you said, if Horton got up from that, there'd prob be no suspension! Having said that, someone posted earlier of the rule and how they can penalize as a result of the extent of the injury. Doesn't really cover suspensions and is meant for the penalty on the play (as far as i know) but it still is important to note.
I will say this though, when i watched the hit last night played over and over, i thought it was clearly shoulder to chest (only) and not to the head. I thought the concussion was from when his head hit the ice but after watching it in slowmo, with the use of the pause button on the pvr, you can see he does in fact get him in the head. Sure, Horton had his head down, it wasn't blind side, etc, but it's still ultimately a headshot and the only way they can get those out of the game or at least severely reduced, is tough punishment. |
|
|
|
Guest4730
( )
|
Posted - 06/07/2011 : 10:16:34
|
| It wasn't Rome's first suspension these playoffs either. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2011 : 10:32:51
|
Funny, just watched Sportnet (rerun from last night) and the consensus was that Rome would get 1 game IF ANY! Have to say, they were a little off on their prediction! 
Apparently, no player in the history of the game has rec'd more than a 1 game suspension in the finals! That changed quickly!  |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2011 : 10:42:51
|
The NHL said as much in their press release:
""Two factors were considered in reaching this decision," said NHL senior vice president of hockey operations Mike Murphy. "The hit by Rome was clearly beyond what is acceptable in terms of how late it was delivered after Horton had released the puck and it caused a significant injury."
regarding the rule you mention Alex - yes, the ref can raise a minor to a major if they feel the action was over the top, or an injury occurred - and they did so in the game. I don't think that goes towards suspensions though. Or at least it hasn't until now.
Honestly, I've seen worse hits this playoffs and in the regular season get suspended less or not suspended at all, so to me this seems either grossly unfair or the NHL has decided (suddenly, now) to change their outlook on how they suspend players for infractions. I hope it is the latter. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2011 : 10:47:04
|
You also have to assume they took advantage of who it was they were dealing with. Let's face it, Pronger's elbow which resulted in a 1 game suspension in the finals a few years back was even worse, clearly intent to injure! However, Rome is not Pronger, nor is he Chara, Bieksa, Hamhuis, etc. If it were a higher profile guy and not our 6th or sometimes 7th dman, the suspension prob would have been lighter.
Just the way it is. |
|
|
|
leigh
Moderator
Canada
1755 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2011 : 10:53:11
|
The suspension is far too harsh. 2 games maximum for what was a slightly late hit. The hit was not a blindside and the head contact was incidental.
The Chara hit on Pacciorety was about the same time difference from release to contact. I'm dissapointed in the NHL, but since this is the first disciplinary action since Campbell stepped down I guess it should be no surprise. |
|
|
|
just1n
PickupHockey Pro
282 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2011 : 11:45:40
|
Sucks for both players to be done for the Stanley Cup final now, must feel pretty terrible for both players. 4 games definitely seems a bit high to me, it was certainly late but he wasn't head hunting. I usually end up saying this about these hits -- keep your head up, gotta look where you're going!
Now Ballard will get his chance I guess. I'm assuming Hamhuis is pretty much done.
|
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2011 : 11:52:41
|
| 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. |
|
|
|
Sensfan101
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
500 Posts |
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 |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
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! |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
leigh
Moderator
Canada
1755 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
FutureKesler
Rookie
Canada
122 Posts |
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! |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
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! |
|
|
|
Oilearl
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
268 Posts |
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...... |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
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 |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
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
deleted
4809 Posts |
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 |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
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.
|
|
|
|
foolpittier
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
374 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
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.
|
Edited by - Beans15 on 06/08/2011 20:11:06 |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
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
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
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
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
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....... |
|
|
|
Open_Ice
Rookie
Canada
109 Posts |
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... |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
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...... |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
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 |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
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..... |
|
|
|
Pasty7
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2312 Posts |
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
|
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
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?
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
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.
|
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
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.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Like Horton, Rome done for the remainder 
