shrader Posted January 9, 2009 Report Posted January 9, 2009 What I want to know is how the heck did Ruutu gnaw through the glove? Doesn't a hockey glove have stiff rigid thumb on it. He obviously broke skin (you can see it)... Peters, IMO, did embellish... :lol: :lol: The glove thing still baffles me? Can anybody explain, or do they were a glove with out thumb protection?... I thought they did becuase that has to be one of the number one type of injury in hockey. Could Peters have had is thumb inverted and Ruutu got him on the inside (where there is no thumb insert)? I think it was more of a shock thing with Peters than anything else. hockey gloves have padding on the top but not on the underside. the palm and fingers are usually a thin leather (at least on mine anyways) to allow for a sensitive feel on the stick. This leather tends to wear out over time, so the palms on Peters' gloves might be getting pretty thin. I don't think that Ruutu necessarily bit straight through it, but tore it by his teeth ripping through it as Peters yanked his hand out of Ruutu's mouth. It's possible. And the bite was directly across the bottom of the thumb, so Ruutu got nothing but that soft leather and the thumb below it. I doubt the leather in Peters' glove is worn out all that much. Pros usually rotate through a few pairs. Unless they're really hooked on a certain pair, they should be in pretty good shape.
nobody Posted January 9, 2009 Report Posted January 9, 2009 I think it was more of a shock thing with Peters than anything else.And the bite was directly across the bottom of the thumb, so Ruutu got nothing but that soft leather and the thumb below it. I doubt the leather in Peters' glove is worn out all that much. Pros usually rotate through a few pairs. Unless they're really hooked on a certain pair, they should be in pretty good shape. Maybe Peters roughs up that part of the glove a bit so the face wash stings a bit more.
shrader Posted January 9, 2009 Report Posted January 9, 2009 Maybe Peters roughs up that part of the glove a bit so the face wash stings a bit more. Wouldn't they be more likely to do that to the palm of the glove though?
nobody Posted January 9, 2009 Report Posted January 9, 2009 Wouldn't they be more likely to do that to the palm of the glove though? That whole palm side of the glove - gotta get the fingers involved on a face wash.
FogBat Posted January 14, 2009 Report Posted January 14, 2009 I'm not even seeing his comment, so we may never know. Here's what buuben said: "Actually no one likes Jarkko Ruutu here in Finland (except some retards). He's famous to shoot the buck to the opponent team's crowd. One year a little girl was badly injured. Just keep him there overseas, will ya? :)"
MattPie Posted January 14, 2009 Report Posted January 14, 2009 What I want to know is how the heck did Ruutu gnaw through the glove? Doesn't a hockey glove have stiff rigid thumb on it. He obviously broke skin (you can see it)... Peters, IMO, did embellish... :lol: :lol: The glove thing still baffles me? Can anybody explain, or do they were a glove with out thumb protection?... I thought they did becuase that has to be one of the number one type of injury in hockey. Could Peters have had is thumb inverted and Ruutu got him on the inside (where there is no thumb insert)? Have you ever banged a shin or scraped a knee through a pair of jeans that drew blood even though the jeans weren't torn? I have, and figure that's the only way that could happen. I haven't seen a pair of hockey gloves in years, but I have some 'racing' motorcycle gloves that seem impossibly thin on the fingers. Thin enough that I wouldn't surprise me that a good bite would break the skin.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.