| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Pasty7
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2312 Posts |
 Posted - 06/14/2011 : 08:38:32
|
i guess i`m the only one because the officals on the ice did not see fit to penalize it, nor is anyone talking but i found it extremly dirty, and can`t believe it wasn`t at least penalized. It is clearly interference the puck is long gone and Boychuk gives Raymond and shot with his arms once he is against the boards in a very akward posisition,, this as i see was extremly dirty and a very rat like move here`s the best link i could find but it is not very good
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoSLSU4e1XQ
"I led the league in "Go get 'em next time." - Bob Uecker
|
|
|
BucketHead
Top Prospect
Canada
78 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2011 : 08:43:09
|
| it was dirty but the nhl is on bostons side, they won't suspend or do anything to them, that they have already proven night in and night out. |
 |
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2011 : 08:52:10
|
As i said in my post in the other thread, the only parts that i can see questionable are the fact that the puck is not there (nor was it ever played by Raymond) AND that he's in a vulnerable position as he's taken into the boards. As we've discussed in the past, THAT is the responsibility of the hitter and he "must avoid the hit" if that's the case.
However, like the Horton hit, i don't think we're even discussing this if not for the injury to Raymond. Then again, that seems to be the new protocol? |
|
|
|
Guest4434
( )
|
Posted - 06/14/2011 : 09:29:03
|
| Raymond and Boychuk were battling for a loose puck and then Raymond caught an edge and Boychuk's momentum carried them into the boards. Raymond was in an awkward position when he hit the boards. There was nothing malicious about the play. |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2011 : 09:41:03
|
Neither player touched the puck, although it was in their vicinity about 2 seconds before the hit. Raymond's momentum was clearly not enough to get him to the boards, he actually seemed to stop himself about 9 inches short of the boards - at which point Boychuk rammed him in to finish the hit. Yes, its a dirty hit. No, I doubt Boychuk will be suspended. I think most were shocked that there was not even a penalty on the play.
Unofficial word is that Raymond has a fractured vertebrae - they are concerned he may not be ready for training camp, never mind game 7. |
|
|
|
Pasty7
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2312 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2011 : 09:44:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4434
Raymond and Boychuk were battling for a loose puck and then Raymond caught an edge and Boychuk's momentum carried them into the boards. Raymond was in an awkward position when he hit the boards. There was nothing malicious about the play.
lol this is funny Boychuk interfere`s with Raymond long before he gets to the puck and when boychuk finish`s his check the puck is at the blueline or almost,,, in what way were they battling for the puck?
"I led the league in "Go get 'em next time." - Bob Uecker
|
|
|
|
blade
Rookie
Canada
199 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2011 : 09:57:08
|
according to NHL.com it's a fractured vertebrae (like nuxfan says) Here is the NHL.com link: http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=565777&navid=mod-rr-headlines
The hit was pretty unnecessary. Makes the Rome incident look innocent. At least Horton had a chance to defend himself (if he were not admiring his pass) Raymond didn't have any opportunity to defend himself and pretty much just had to ride it out.
Cheap s***! |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2011 : 10:05:18
|
I don't think it makes the Horton hit look worse or better - its just another hit that, IMO, should be suspended. Raymond did not have the puck, the puck was nowhere near either player, and Boychuk clearly and unnecessarily rams Raymond into the boards while he is in a vulnerable position.
So, we saw with the Rome hit that the NHL has finally decided to clamp down on the dirty hits. Lets see what they do with this one. |
|
|
|
Guest4178
( )
|
Posted - 06/14/2011 : 10:18:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
However, like the Horton hit, i don't think we're even discussing this if not for the injury to Raymond. Then again, that seems to be the new protocol?
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
However, like the Horton hit, i don't think we're even discussing this if not for the injury to Raymond. Then again, that seems to be the new protocol?
Completely agree that there's no discussion on this hit, except for the fact a player was hurt.
Like Alex, I'm cheering for the Canucks, but that doesn't necessarily mean we can't be objective with our opinion(s).
To take Alex's point a bit further, there are a number of big hits or collisions which take place each and every game (especially in the playoffs), where the intent and result are not congruent.
I will give you an example from the Boston side. There was a minor penalty called on Alex Edler for boarding in the first period. (I think it was Marchand who was hit.) The 2 minute call was fair, but IF Marchand was knocked unconscious by the hit (or at least not get up right away), the call would have been completely different. In fact, if Marchand was carried off in a stretcher, I'm thinking Edler gets a 5- minute major and a game misconduct. (And the league would probably add a suspension, but no more than a game suspension, recognizing that there would be only one game left to play.)
There are many examples like this every single game, where intent, circumstances, bad luck, strong bones, bad ice, etc., etc., play a role in what happens on the ice.
Hockey's a very physical sport, and while there are clear examples when penalties need to be called (and should be called), fans are too often overreacting (this case is not even the best example of this) to the end result, when there are numerous infractions which are more serious which just so happen to NOT have a serious end result. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2011 : 10:23:32
|
I think I did mention this hit in another thread on reffing, just wasn't very specific on it.
Mason Raymond has a cracked vertebrae. Hope it's not serious, but anything with the vertebrae is.
Blatant homer reffing . . . but don't worry, Beans will defend it somehow, just wait for it. 
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2011 : 10:49:49
|
Just like Slozo will find a way to blame the ref just about every time. I'm sure the linemen must have done something for Luongo to let in 3 weak goals or that the ref's have something to do with the Canucks PP at less than 5% in the finals. From what I recall from Slozo's posts, every NHL ref in every game since the start of time is a Homer
Wait for it......
As far as this hit goes, it didn't look malicious to me, but it was illegal with a doubt. Boychuk doesn't need to push him into the boards. IMO this is another one of those 'finish your check' mentalities. I am interested to hear what the outcome of this is and the NHL's comments. This is clearly a situation of a missed call and something that produces an easy argument for a suspension.
|
|
|
|
Guest4140
( )
|
Posted - 06/14/2011 : 11:05:59
|
Canucks have announced the injury as a vertebral compression fracture with Raymond out for 3 to 4 months.
I am new to the pools and this board but a long time hockey fan. The non call on this hit could definitely have rattled the team. While some might believe it doesn't change the complexion of the game I would have to disagree. Even at an elite level the mind can drift to wonder how your fallen team mate is doing taking the edge off of your focus, however briefly.
Interesting that there is little about the hit and resulting injury on NHL.com when they were all over the Horton hit. Sadly not surprising.
Just hoping the "hands off" approach to game sevens doesn't result in an even more serious injury. |
|
|
|
BucketHead
Top Prospect
Canada
78 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2011 : 11:54:03
|
| i just re-watched the hit and the ref watches the whole thing and doesn't even stop play for a good bit after raymond is down and out, what a joke, you can clearly see that he is injuried, one question do the same refs do every game in the final? and if so that is the dumbest thing ever. |
|
|
|
Pasty7
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2312 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2011 : 12:07:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Just like Slozo will find a way to blame the ref just about every time. I'm sure the linemen must have done something for Luongo to let in 3 weak goals or that the ref's have something to do with the Canucks PP at less than 5% in the finals. From what I recall from Slozo's posts, every NHL ref in every game since the start of time is a Homer
Wait for it......
As far as this hit goes, it didn't look malicious to me, but it was illegal with a doubt. Boychuk doesn't need to push him into the boards. IMO this is another one of those 'finish your check' mentalities. I am interested to hear what the outcome of this is and the NHL's comments. This is clearly a situation of a missed call and something that produces an easy argument for a suspension.
Beans in this case i think you have to blame the ref`s here a bit, it`s not like it happend in a split second and could have been missed, as you described a body check earlier as being a play to remove a player from the puck i think we can all agree the puck is not in this equation, so i think we can all agree this is at the very least interference, so the refs had to be makeing some sort of call on this play,,, wether you suspend him or not really isn;t the case at the beginign the refs have to make this call,, then you have to look at the precedent set with the rome hit, the same call should have been made interference,, so rome was suspended for interference and a late hit,, this is deffinetly late and deffinetly interference, Murphy said the signifigant injury to Horton was part of his desicion to suspend wll guess What Raymond`s injury is pretty bloody signifigant so Murphy has to suspend boychuk no questions asked is the way i see it,,
"I led the league in "Go get 'em next time." - Bob Uecker
|
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2011 : 12:43:07
|
quote:
I am interested to hear what the outcome of this is and the NHL's comments. This is clearly a situation of a missed call and something that produces an easy argument for a suspension.
According to Dredger, the NHL does not find the hit to be malicious, and at this time are not looking into it further.
I am shocked. While I too didn't find the hit particularly malicious (Boychuk did not intend to do this for sure), but the intent does not mitigate the hit - hit was clearly illegal, and should be suspended. |
|
|
|
Guest4050
( )
|
Posted - 06/14/2011 : 13:13:49
|
I love how many (not all) of the Vancouver fan group is outraged by this incident, but have not even bothered to entertain the blatant boarding hit by Edler.
I am in agreement with many that the hit should of been penalized & the finishing of the hit c**p was unnecessary, but to those claiming its a rat move lay off the sauce before posting or watch the game in both ends of the ice. Edler didn't give a rats a** where the puck was (much the same as Boychuk) and lined up Peverely from the blue line in and layed him out deliberately. Had it not been GM 6, regardless of injury or not he would of got a game or two. For those who wish to claim Boychuk was dirtier then Rome I must have missed something, but for those who wish to claim that the Edler hit was more mallicious & had more intent behind it then Rome's I would surely agree. Rome simply delivered a Scott Stevens type hit in the wrong era & the fact a star was injured by a 6th dman never helped they guys cs.
I personally have no issue with the way the hit was delivered by Edler, only the timing of it, but for some to yell bloody murder about one & conveniently sweep the other under the rug ( I think some of you are watching the game with the same glasses you claim the refs are)
To both Van & Bos fans BOL tomorrow & try and get some sleep (GM 7 on the road suck good luck sleeping 
Mario 66
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2011 : 13:57:05
|
Ya Mario, I agree with your comments towards the Canucks fans. I have not seen the Edler hit you are reffering too, however I too have noticed how many (not all, I am generalizing here) Canucks fans will scream bloody murder for every missed call against Boston without acknowledging any missed calls against Vancouver.
But I can't say anything about it because I am biased and don't hate the refs. That makes my comments irrelevant.  |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2011 : 14:27:40
|
I thought it was a fairly routine, mundane, run of the mill, fight for position type play, much like is seen in virtually every game, but without the tragic consequence.
If this is the first time you have ever seen this type of play, you don't watch enough hockey.
If you think this is any way comparable to Rome/Horton, you don't understand the hockey you watch.
If you think the whole play was unjust........you must be a Canucklehead!!
Hope Raymond recovers fully, and I agree with the refs, this was no penalty, IMHO.
The replay shows Raymond moving his arms and stick in front of Boychuk as they move to the puck, pretty hard to call interference on one without calling the same on the other. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2011 : 14:27:53
|
Personally i've seen many calls missed both ways, not just in this series, but others too, AND have mentioned it time and time again.
The issue i have is with the after the whistle BS. I am absolutely horrified by the stuff the Bruins have gotten away with and equally horrified at how the Canucks are referred to as the classless, dirty, [insert many other derogatory words], etc team while all this goes on. Anyone not in agreement that the Bruins have gotten away with ridiculous amounts of crap after the whistle either hasn't been watching the games or is not being honest. BTW, this isn't an opinion, it's a fact, just watch the games!
As for the hits being discussed, absolutely the Edler hit was bad! Beans, if you still haven't seen it, he takes out Peverly as they chase for the puck on an icing call (illegal) and hit's him into the end boards rather than trying to play the puck. Could have been a 5 min major, and the way this series has gone, i'm surprised it wasn't! Here's the thing though, even if they threw him out, Peverly was up and obviously not hurt. So, if Murphy was going to look at it, surely the lack of injury would have come into play for any suspension talk right?
On the other hand, the refs not only missed the call on the Boychuk interference, it did in fact lead to a serious injury. You said it yourself, the hit was illegal! So, what is it that the league doesn't see and why are they not reviewing this "illegal" hit which caused serious injury??? That, is where Canuck fans are confused and angry!!! |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2011 : 15:10:32
|
quote:
I love how many (not all) of the Vancouver fan group is outraged by this incident, but have not even bothered to entertain the blatant boarding hit by Edler.
This topic was about Boychuk on Raymond, not Edler's hit, perhaps that is why no one was discussing it.
Edler got a penalty for the hit, and rightly so. It was boderline suspendable, and I guess the league didn't think enough of it to consider a suspension either. The BOS player got right up and continued on, Edler got penalized.
quote:
On the other hand, the refs not only missed the call on the Boychuk interference, it did in fact lead to a serious injury. You said it yourself, the hit was illegal! So, what is it that the league doesn't see and why are they not reviewing this "illegal" hit which caused serious injury??? That, is where Canuck fans are confused and angry!!!
Yep, this is pretty much it.
The NHL was very clear in their decision to suspend Rome:
"Two factors were considered in reaching this decision," said NHL senior vice president of hockey operations Mike Murphy in a statement. "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."
So, Rome was suspended because of a) a late hit, and b) significant injury. Fair enough - like I said in another thread, if thats the new measure, then thats the new measure. Apply it evenly.
Now, we have another hit that is a) late, and b) caused significant injury. And we have no suspension. It is frustrating. |
|
|
|
Sensfan101
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
500 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2011 : 15:52:55
|
Yes this hit was late probabely later then the Rome hit but their is a huge difference. Boychuck was just trying to rub out his man along the boards. Yes the hit was late and yes the hit was unecessary but it is not the same thing at all. If Raymond didn't get hurt their is no way anyone even complains about this not being a two minute minor. Rome however was trying make a big hit not just rub his man out along the boards. In my opinion the Edler hit on Krecji was 10 times worse.
You miss 100 percent of the shots you don't take Wayne Gretzky |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2011 : 16:00:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sensfan101
Yes this hit was late probabely later then the Rome hit but their is a huge difference. Boychuck was just trying to rub out his man along the boards. Yes the hit was late and yes the hit was unecessary but it is not the same thing at all. If Raymond didn't get hurt their is no way anyone even complains about this not being a two minute minor. Rome however was trying make a big hit not just rub his man out along the boards. In my opinion the Edler hit on Krecji was 10 times worse.
You miss 100 percent of the shots you don't take Wayne Gretzky
Sensfan....read what is bolded and try to explain where those who are upset about this hit are coming from. It was late, unecessary, etc. Same things that were said about the Rome hit. Add to it that Raymond was in the so called "vulnerable position" that is directly referred to in the rules and how can you say it's worse than the Rome hit? Sure the Rome hit due to the speed involved looked worse but regardless, you have a dangerous hit on a vulnerable player that is not even so much as being reviewed by the league? After what Rome got, how can anyone who considers this hit late or dangerous not see the double standard???
Also, if Horton got up and walked away, we wouldn't have Rome sitting for 4 games. Please tell me you agree with that at least??
Here's a little quote from E.J. Hradek - NHL.com Analyst that about sums it up.....
* When you're playing for the Stanley Cup, I know just about anything goes. Still, I didn't like the way Bruins D Johnny Boychuk finished his check with force on vulnerable Canucks winger Mason Raymond into the corner boards on the game's very first shift.
The two men engaged with one another as they jockeyed to get to a loose puck. Raymond got turned around -- facing away from the boards and into Boychuk. Raymond was also bent over at the waist. Boychuk could have released Raymond or, at the least, eased up on finishing his check. He did neither. Instead, he used his 6'2, 225-pound frame to drive Raymond into the boards backward, seemingly jamming his head and neck into Boychuk's torso.
While it's probably too much to ask a rugged defender playing for these type of stakes to hold up just 20 seconds into an elimination game, but it doesn't mean we have to accept it. If nothing else, it should have been a boarding penalty. The puck was long gone when the play got to the boards.
AND, if it were in fact called a boarding penalty AND resulted in a serious injury, which i have to assume even the NHL would count a broken back as, then would we have seen it reviewed for the purpose of a suspension?
I know it doesn't matter at this point, it's like crying about a missed call on the ice, but at least try to see where the frustration comes from on the other side of things!
|
Edited by - Alex116 on 06/14/2011 16:11:46 |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2011 : 16:37:55
|
Here is a link to Kerry Fraser's explaination on the hit. He says 2 min penalty for either interference or hooking, but no suspension. If you read the entire story, it makes sense.
http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=368912
I also have to say to Alex that yes, the Bruins have gotten away with stuff after the whistle. So has Vancouver. The Bruins most likely have gotten away with more but when you consider the diving and embellishment that Vancouver has participated in to a far high level than Boston has, it evens out pretty well in my eyes.
Bruins get away with more after the whistle
Vancouver dives and embellishes more.
Even. |
|
|
|
Sensfan101
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
500 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2011 : 16:59:55
|
Sure if Horton wasn't hurt their probabely wouldn't have been a four game suspension probabely no suspension at all but we would Still talk about how dirty it was. The Boychuck hit was a routine play. A similar play happens dozens of times during a game but the one time someone gets hurt it's a big deal. Surely even you can't argue that the Boychuck hit was worse then the Edler hit.
You miss 100 percent of the shots you don't take Wayne Gretzky |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2011 : 17:16:51
|
Ridiculous to me how the different criteria are applied to both Boston bad hits and Vancouver bad hits, usually at the expense of Vancouver.
I scratch my head at it, and wonder if it's because it's a Canadian team, the chance of overall horrible reffing, the bad reputation of the Canucks, or a combination of some or all of these points.
Kerry Fraser? Screw him, that's more than a 2 minute penalty if in the finals the precedent has ALREADY BEEN SET ON INJURIES BEING A PART OF THE DECISION TO SUSPEND / PENALISE.
The Rome hit made that precedent, and the refs used it as their (IMHO, poor) excuse to lay a record 4 games suspension for a clean but somewhat late hit.
This is another late hit, and not that clean. It's not a hockey play, not a guy on the rush, IMHO. It's worse than the Rome hit in terms of legality, IMHO.
And I cannot stress to you enough that I could care less if Vancouver or Boston wins . . .
. . . just can't wait to get rid of this merde sacre bleu mon dieu! Canadiens logo in about 26 hours so I can wear my MAPLE LEAFS BLUE AND WHITE proudly all summer.
Just like Beans
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
letsdothis
Top Prospect
Canada
4 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2011 : 17:27:51
|
If Peverley had touched the puck when he was racing to to beat out the icing call before Edler hit him, there would have been no call. That fact that he barely (intentionally?) missed the touch means that Edler was clearly going to the hit and not the puck. Fine, good call.
But I think every one here can agree that regardless of Raymonds injury, if the ref is standing right bloody next to that clear late unnecessary hit, there should be a major penalty, but there was nada nothing. Zilch. it's BS.
lets hope the nucks get energized because of it.
also. less than a minute after that hit, Chara, body checks then cross checks then punches Daniel Sedin AS HE'S GOING DOWN, and they call a diving call on Daniel???? what is going on? it's BS |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2011 : 17:56:16
|
Yep, there goes Slozo again discrediting a 20+ year offical with more than 1900 games and 260 playoff games. Yep, a ref who was voted as the most consistent referee by the players in a 2005 poll has his educated opinion tossed aside with a simple
Kerry Fraser? Screw him, that's more than a 2 minute penalty if in the finals the precedent has ALREADY BEEN SET ON INJURIES BEING A PART OF THE DECISION TO SUSPEND / PENALISE.
Not sure if anyone realizes that the NHL is not a court or governed by the same laws. No disciplinary action is precedent. Each situation is measured against the rule book.
Slozo, be careful stepping off the soapbox. 
I watched the hit again and again. Regular speed, slo motion, etc. I see at worst a 2 minute interference call. I don't see Boychuk overly agressive on the hit at all. I don't see Boychuk do any extra push or shove into the boards. I also don't see Boychuk let up at all either. However, if Raymond is not hunched over, no injury and this is not even discussed.
I've also had a chance to see the Edler hit on Peverly and that hit is far more dangerous and melicious than the Boychuk hit. By a landslide!!! Anyone who disagrees is providing nothing more than strawman arguments.
But don't forget, I am biased, I love all the refs, and I love Gary Bettman which makes me a moron. |
Edited by - Beans15 on 06/14/2011 18:03:04 |
|
|
|
BucketHead
Top Prospect
Canada
78 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2011 : 18:13:53
|
| Peverly also ducked down just before Edler hit him so what was he suppose to do. i'm just piss at the double team air hit on higgins that was bs. and i'm in no way a vancouver fan but i hate the bruins just a bit more. these are the 2 teams in the nhl that piss me off more then any other teams. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2011 : 19:02:55
|
If Peverly ducked down than Raymond reached down, grabbed Boychuck's stick and put it between his legs, then bent over to run into the boards.
What I am saying is no way Peverly ducked down. Edler rode him half way up the glass!!!
But don't forget, I am the biased one. |
|
|
|
TheRC
Rookie
105 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2011 : 19:54:01
|
As a hockey fan without much of an interest in either of these teams, I really don't think the refereeing is slanted in favour of either team. Both teams have got away with some s*** after the whistle (Boston maybe more frequently, but Vancouver more blatant. Kessler has thrown some downright nasty slashes) and both teams have had misses calls both in their favour and against.
To me the hit on Raymond looked both dirty and unintentional. I'm not quite sure how I'd have called it, but I also know - and this is what nobody seems to bring up - that there was a play with a good chance of scoring going on at the exact same time. That's why the refs didn't see it. Hell, there isn't even any good footage of the hit because all the TV cameras were focused on the net. I'm not saying off camera means it doesn't matter, but to everybody claiming a referee bias, well... where were YOU looking when Raymond got hit?
"If at first you don't succeed, you fail" |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2011 : 19:54:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Here is a link to Kerry Fraser's explaination on the hit. He says 2 min penalty for either interference or hooking, but no suspension. If you read the entire story, it makes sense.
http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=368912
I also have to say to Alex that yes, the Bruins have gotten away with stuff after the whistle. So has Vancouver. The Bruins most likely have gotten away with more but when you consider the diving and embellishment that Vancouver has participated in to a far high level than Boston has, it evens out pretty well in my eyes.
Bruins get away with more after the whistle
Vancouver dives and embellishes more.
Even.
Very interesting way you decide things are EVEN? Of course, that's your opinion, cool, i'd expect nothing less from you. However, how is it even when the Canucks are constantly getting called for diving (even on ones which clearly aren't, ahem, Henrik/Chara) and the Bruins are constantly getting away with their after the whistle BS??? Oh wait, they finaly called Marchand last night with less than two mins left, thanks, i guess you're right, it's even  ............. |
|
|
|
Pasty7
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2312 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2011 : 19:54:19
|
i think Murphy made it quite clear when he described the Rome hit is a suspension, this isn<t even a matter of opinion Murphy made it quite clear when he described the Rome hit, it was late , it was unnessary, and it caused a serious injury noone can argu those points, and those points were the reasons for suspending Rome so it`s not a matter of opinion it is fact Boychuk should be suspended
"I led the league in "Go get 'em next time." - Bob Uecker
|
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2011 : 20:04:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sensfan101
Surely even you can't argue that the Boychuck hit was worse then the Edler hit.
You miss 100 percent of the shots you don't take Wayne Gretzky
No, i wouldn't argue that at all. I was actually quite happy to see Peverly get up because i knew then there wasn't gonna be a suspension. Well, i obviously didn't "know" cuz none of us do anymore, but i had to assume there wouldn't be. I didn't like the hit Edler threw at all and i don't agree with whoever said here or in another thread that Peverly was reaching for the puck as i don't think he ever got the chance. What i don't think you're seeing is the point we're (Canucks fans) trying to make is that Murphy has totally set himself up for these complaints by the ridiculous 4 game suspension he threw at Rome! It all goes back to that point!
Lemme ask you this Sensfan.... if Peverly had not gotten up, do you think Edler would have gotten a 5 min major? Personally, i do. AND, if he had ended up with a broken neck, do you think Edler would be playing tomorrow night? I don't. Those are my opinions only, i admit. Now, how is it that almost everyone on here agrees that the Boychuck his was late, likely a penalty of some sort, and even though it resulted in an injury as serious or moreso than Horton's, some still don't see the need for the NHL to have a look at it??? |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2011 : 20:20:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I watched the hit again and again. Regular speed, slo motion, etc. I see at worst a 2 minute interference call. I don't see Boychuk overly agressive on the hit at all. I don't see Boychuk do any extra push or shove into the boards. I also don't see Boychuk let up at all either. However, if Raymond is not hunched over, no injury and this is not even discussed.
I changed a few things here, as it's just so easy to see things the way you do........
I watched the hit again and again. Regular speed, slo motion, etc. I see at worst a 2 minute interference call. I don't see ROME leave his feet on the hit at all. I don't see ROME lead with his elbow. I also don't see ROME let up at all either. However, if Horton is looking where he's going, no injury and this is not even discussed.
One gets a five minute major, a game misconduct, PLUS 4 SCF playoff games as a suspension and the other get's "we see no need to review this play". Lol, "even" again i guess? |
|
|
|
leigh
Moderator
Canada
1755 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2011 : 21:01:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Yep, there goes Slozo again discrediting a 20+ year offical with more than 1900 games and 260 playoff games. Yep, a ref who was voted as the most consistent referee by the players in a 2005 poll has his educated opinion tossed aside with a simple
[i]
Actually Slozo may have a point. I don't think Kerry Fraser would discredit anything his former collegues rule on. At least he hasn't the half dozen times I've seen him on TSN. It's a brotherhood and he was their leader for many years, he'll support them through thick and thin. Now having said that he was a great ref...even though his hair made 90% of his good calls. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2011 : 21:25:30
|
I don't disagree Leigh, but the article that Fraser wrote was not what was right or wrong, it was the definition of the call, the situation, and why the call was made. He did not make an opinion of if the call was right or wrong. He stated what he would have called based on his interpretation of the rules.
And since there was no call made and he clearly said it would have been a 2 minute penalty, is that not going against what his brotherhood actually did??? This is not a guy looking at a play at full speed at ice level. This is an experienced, highly regarded ref who looked at the play from every angle available.
Not sure about anyone else, but I appreciate the word of Fraser as lot more than the rhetoric of those saying this hit was worse than what it was. |
|
|
|
Guest2115
( )
|
Posted - 06/15/2011 : 00:18:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I don't disagree Leigh, but the article that Fraser wrote was not what was right or wrong, it was the definition of the call, the situation, and why the call was made. He did not make an opinion of if the call was right or wrong. He stated what he would have called based on his interpretation of the rules.
And since there was no call made and he clearly said it would have been a 2 minute penalty, is that not going against what his brotherhood actually did??? This is not a guy looking at a play at full speed at ice level. This is an experienced, highly regarded ref who looked at the play from every angle available.
Not sure about anyone else, but I appreciate the word of Fraser as lot more than the rhetoric of those saying this hit was worse than what it was.
hey beans just for fun you love to pull the rule book when it suits you, pull out the penalty for boarding read it then watch the hit,, |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2011 : 00:21:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pasty7
i think Murphy made it quite clear when he described the Rome hit is a suspension, this isn<t even a matter of opinion Murphy made it quite clear when he described the Rome hit, it was late , it was unnessary, and it caused a serious injury noone can argu those points, and those points were the reasons for suspending Rome so it`s not a matter of opinion it is fact Boychuk should be suspended
"I led the league in "Go get 'em next time." - Bob Uecker
Except for one fairly large difference. Rome got 5 and a game, and Boychuk didn't get called for an infraction. All rhetoric and opinon aside....those are the facts, hence the difference in outcome regarding suspension. We can say all we want about what coulda, shoulda, woulda, but, in my opinion anyways, the right calls, and any supplimentary disciplinary penalty, was done correctly.
|
|
|
|
Porkchop73
PickupHockey Pro
640 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2011 : 01:22:31
|
| The real problem with this play was that Raymond was in a vulnerable position and Boychuk should have recognized it. Instead Boychuk continued to drive him into the boards with a more force then required. This was not one of those split second finish the hit type of plays. It was a weird sort of broken play where Boychuk decided to finish rubbing a player out. Boychuk had already done an effective job of keeping Raymond off the puck and with Raymond getting into a vulnerable position Boychuk did not have to continue with hit. IMO - Boychuck is at fault, not really a dirty hit, not really a suspendable type of hit, but a totally unnesescary hit. |
|
|
|
Pasty7
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2312 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2011 : 04:31:30
|
i find it very strange that the same people who in other threads call on the NHl to remove dangerous hits from the game and remove the finishing your check mentality from the game seem to have no problem with a player unesesarily taken advantage of another player in a vunerable posistion and breaking his back, it's strange i can almost smell the bull... through my computer screen!
"I led the league in "Go get 'em next time." - Bob Uecker
|
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2011 : 04:47:56
|
Hear hear, Pasty.
Beans agreed with Willus wholeheartedly on the "finish your check" mentality when applied to Rome (wrongly, IMHO, but that's another thread). But if it may in some slight way benefit the hated Canucks? Forget it, excuses galore, including the awsome one offered up by Fat Elvis - "if the refs didn't call it, it didn't happen".
Priceless.
Btw, where is Willus on this one? Would like to hear his thoughts on it.
I am almost done trying to make people see double standards here . . . frustrating and fruitless.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Boychuk on Raymond 
