| Author |
 Topic  |
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
 Posted - 06/09/2011 : 10:46:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
I think you may be taking the preaching to the choir thing the wrong way. No reason to really go off about that. He was saying he agreed with you. Why the hostility?
What i still don't get, because i guess i don't understand the way you answered, is whether or not you feel ANY "finishing your check" plays should be eliminated, and yes, i'm talking about the dman who's just passed the puck. If in fact you feel that should no longer be allowed, so be it, though i'd disagree as i'm more of a purist and that sort of play has been around forever.
Bolded:
Begs the question, how old are you? Have you watched any hockey, let's say pre 1990?
|
 |
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2011 : 10:55:39
|
Alex, I re-read my post several times and I didn't feel like there was anything confusing in what I said. I don't think I should have to defend everything I write numerous times. It is there, you can read it again if you wish. I do accept the apology and offer the same to you if I offended you.
Secondly, to Willus' point, I would also argue that pre-90's hockey did not have the 'finish your check' mentality to the degree that it does today. Hockey has always been a physical and often violent game. However, this attitude that some players have about needing to finish checks and play physical all the time is not that new. Using Torres as an example when he stated after he was suspended for the hit on Eberle, he commented that if he didn't play that way that he would not be in the league. In the 80's Oilers hay-day, things like this were so rare that one can easily forget the times they did happen. Even more telling is that when players did play reckless and dangerous, they would not be in the NHL for long.
However, all of us who are old enough can tell you every concussion that Lindros or Kariya have endured, not to mention the numberous more recent example. But how many people can give examples of killer hits that injured players even from the early 90's???
I do have to respectfully disagree that as a purist this has been around for ever. Consider that players were skating around without helmets for longer than that have had to play with them and concussions are increasing. This type of hit was a rarity prior to the early to mid-90's. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2011 : 11:20:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
Willus: The "finish your check" mentality. Change that and you'll start to get somewhere.
I have agreed in the past on this with you, Willus - finishing your check on a guy against the boards when you already got the puck back or are transitioning to offense - it's a useless, non-hockey play. We are in agreement there.
But this was not "finishing your check", I'll contend. This was about taking out one of the guys on the rush, as they had the puck in the offensive zone and were a threat to score. Sure, Horton had just dished off the pass - but the check was to stop or slow that player from being in the play after that. It was to prevent a good scoring chance, which in my mind is a solid hockey play.
If this play is at centre ice . . . then yes, I am in full agreement with you, Wilus. But I sincerely see this as a solid hockey play to take out a guy from the rush and developing play. Even without the puck now, he was likely to get it back.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Bolded:
This is interference and is also a penalty.
The frustrating part of this for me is that everyone thinks these things are the way the game is supposed to be played. Many things have crept in to the game over time and become accepted. The unfortunate natural progression.
No, checking a guy who just had the puck is not interference. They are open to be checked. Any
What IS interference is a late hit on the guy who had the puck - and I get that many here think it was late (I don't think so, comparing it to other hits, myself).
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2011 : 11:30:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
Willus: The "finish your check" mentality. Change that and you'll start to get somewhere.
I have agreed in the past on this with you, Willus - finishing your check on a guy against the boards when you already got the puck back or are transitioning to offense - it's a useless, non-hockey play. We are in agreement there.
But this was not "finishing your check", I'll contend. This was about taking out one of the guys on the rush, as they had the puck in the offensive zone and were a threat to score. Sure, Horton had just dished off the pass - but the check was to stop or slow that player from being in the play after that. It was to prevent a good scoring chance, which in my mind is a solid hockey play.
If this play is at centre ice . . . then yes, I am in full agreement with you, Wilus. But I sincerely see this as a solid hockey play to take out a guy from the rush and developing play. Even without the puck now, he was likely to get it back.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Bolded:
This is interference and is also a penalty.
The frustrating part of this for me is that everyone thinks these things are the way the game is supposed to be played. Many things have crept in to the game over time and become accepted. The unfortunate natural progression.
No, checking a guy who just had the puck is not interference. They are open to be checked. Any
What IS interference is a late hit on the guy who had the puck - and I get that many here think it was late (I don't think so, comparing it to other hits, myself).
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Yes, it is.
http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26348
Problem is many of the rules are subject to interpretation. Reading this rule I find it to be somewhat contradictory actually. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2011 : 12:47:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
No, checking a guy who just had the puck is not interference. They are open to be checked. Any
What IS interference is a late hit on the guy who had the puck - and I get that many here think it was late (I don't think so, comparing it to other hits, myself).
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Yes, it is.
http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26348
Problem is many of the rules are subject to interpretation. Reading this rule I find it to be somewhat contradictory actually.
Willus, i agree that the wording in the rules is confusing and contradictory, but how is the following part that i've cut and pasted from the rules, not showing exactly what Slozo is talking about.......
" The last player to touch the puck, other than the goalkeeper, shall be considered the player in possession. The player deemed in possession of the puck may be checked legally, provided the check is rendered immediately following his loss of possession."
Seems this backs up exactly what Slozo was saying.
The problem with the clip i provided is it's unclear "when" a guy actually loses possesion. It says the last player to touch the puck is the one in possesion? Well, if a guy ices it and it's not touched for 7 or 8 seconds, i don't think he's still considered the guy in possesion, right? Like a lot of rules, it's worded pretty poorly and left for too much discretion. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2011 : 12:56:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
No, checking a guy who just had the puck is not interference. They are open to be checked. Any
What IS interference is a late hit on the guy who had the puck - and I get that many here think it was late (I don't think so, comparing it to other hits, myself).
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Yes, it is.
http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26348
Problem is many of the rules are subject to interpretation. Reading this rule I find it to be somewhat contradictory actually.
Willus, i agree that the wording in the rules is confusing and contradictory, but how is the following part that i've cut and pasted from the rules, not showing exactly what Slozo is talking about.......
" The last player to touch the puck, other than the goalkeeper, shall be considered the player in possession. The player deemed in possession of the puck may be checked legally, provided the check is rendered immediately following his loss of possession."
Seems this backs up exactly what Slozo was saying.
The problem with the clip i provided is it's unclear "when" a guy actually loses possesion. It says the last player to touch the puck is the one in possesion? Well, if a guy ices it and it's not touched for 7 or 8 seconds, i don't think he's still considered the guy in possesion, right? Like a lot of rules, it's worded pretty poorly and left for too much discretion.
Yes, it would be the interpretation of the word "immediately" in that sentence that is up for debate.
Now if you read down further about body positioning and picks you can argue interference in the situation Slozo put forth earlier.
|
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2011 : 13:12:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
[quote]Originally posted by slozo
[quote]Originally posted by Alex116
What IS interference is a late hit on the guy who had the puck - and I get that many here think it was late (I don't think so, comparing it to other hits, myself).
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Bolded:
Maybe that's the problem. You are comparing from a standpoint that the league is trying to address not necessarily perpetuate.
|
Edited by - willus3 on 06/09/2011 13:12:46 |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2011 : 13:37:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
The frustrating part of this for me is that everyone thinks these things are the way the game is supposed to be played. Many things have crept in to the game over time and become accepted. The unfortunate natural progression.
Willus, i missed a few things earlier including this (above) as well as your question about my age. To answer that first, i'm 40 and yes i did watch hockey pre 1990, in fact back as far as the '70's. Obviously i don't recall as much from the 70's and 80's as i do more recently, but from everthing i remember, there was "finishing your check" hits back then. No, not the Stevens type open ice ones or at least no where near as often but isn't that basically what you're saying above?
Things have crept into the game for sure, i agree. But it's also an ever changing sport with new, harder, better equipment, faster skaters, bigger bodies, sticks which allow for harder shots, etc, etc. All i've been trying to say from the start is that if they're gonna take these "hits after the pass" away, to be fair, they have to do it for not just the ones like we saw on the Rome hit. They have to take them ALL away and that's a big change to the game. If they wanna do that, fine, they've made many other significant changes through the years so i'm sure we'd all learn to live with it.
That's pretty much all i've been trying to say from the start before it got side tracked to the point where i believe Beans thought i was arguing one thing when in fact i was just asking him a question about finishing checks ( i'm pretty sure he thought i was talking about the big open ice hit's like Rome threw). I agree, those weren't as prevalent in the 80's but finishing your check on a dman has been around for as long as i can recall! |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2011 : 05:36:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
The frustrating part of this for me is that everyone thinks these things are the way the game is supposed to be played. Many things have crept in to the game over time and become accepted. The unfortunate natural progression.
Willus, i missed a few things earlier including this (above) as well as your question about my age. To answer that first, i'm 40 and yes i did watch hockey pre 1990, in fact back as far as the '70's. Obviously i don't recall as much from the 70's and 80's as i do more recently, but from everthing i remember, there was "finishing your check" hits back then. No, not the Stevens type open ice ones or at least no where near as often but isn't that basically what you're saying above?
Things have crept into the game for sure, i agree. But it's also an ever changing sport with new, harder, better equipment, faster skaters, bigger bodies, sticks which allow for harder shots, etc, etc. All i've been trying to say from the start is that if they're gonna take these "hits after the pass" away, to be fair, they have to do it for not just the ones like we saw on the Rome hit. They have to take them ALL away and that's a big change to the game. If they wanna do that, fine, they've made many other significant changes through the years so i'm sure we'd all learn to live with it.
That's pretty much all i've been trying to say from the start before it got side tracked to the point where i believe Beans thought i was arguing one thing when in fact i was just asking him a question about finishing checks ( i'm pretty sure he thought i was talking about the big open ice hit's like Rome threw). I agree, those weren't as prevalent in the 80's but finishing your check on a dman has been around for as long as i can recall!
Hold up here - don't go tarnishing my boy Stevens, slow down partner. Look up his top ten ten, top twenty hits - all bone-crushing hits, he was a rock - and almost all are at his own blueline stopping a guy on the rush.
Kind of like the Rome hit.
I sincerely don't want to argue too long with Willus on this, as I do not want to give the impression I totally disagree with him on the "finish your check" mentality. I think I just disagree that this particular Rome check was that kind of check.
I will concede one point - it was, perhaps, over the top in force; but there is no way that warranted 4 games.
I'll put it to you this way: if Rome didn't notice that Horton didn't see him coming, it's a check that protects himself from being obliterated instead, as Horton is bigger, and is coming in at a greater speed.
If Horton is actually ready in any way for this hit,, I bet you Rome falls, not Horton. Think about it . . . how do you prepare to check a big guy like Horton coming in on the rush at a good speed? You sort of "let up" because he "might not notice you"? How often will the d-man get burned in this situation if he lets up?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Like Horton, Rome done for the remainder 
