ROC Sabres Posted January 16, 2009 Report Posted January 16, 2009 That seems like a real stretch, that "he-she" is the only woman poster. There have to be more. And many women lurking. There are just too many female hockey fans to believe this board is the domain of men. No offense to any females, but although their are plenty of female sabres fans, I'm banking on the fact not many of them use the internet like us guys do. You know (fantasy leagues, hockey forums, porn, etc).
spndnchz Posted January 16, 2009 Report Posted January 16, 2009 That seems like a real stretch, that "he-she" is the only woman poster. There have to be more. And many women lurking. There are just too many female hockey fans to believe this board is the domain of men. There's 8 here that I know of.
Stoner Posted January 16, 2009 Report Posted January 16, 2009 There's 8 here that I know of. Not counting constantly PMS-ing PA and DeLuca? Wow! 8! This is like discovering life on Mars.
nfreeman Posted January 17, 2009 Report Posted January 17, 2009 To play devil's advocate, many hockey fans thought Stevens was a dirty head hunter. I am one of them.
inkman Posted January 17, 2009 Author Report Posted January 17, 2009 I am one of them. I'm not sure where I lean that fence. A lot of his hits were questionable but I crave for that type of hockey player so bad, it feels like betrayal to condemn Stevens for his actions.
Norcal Posted January 17, 2009 Report Posted January 17, 2009 I have been saying for a couple of years that Drew Stafford was gonna be a beast so I hope this is the style he will grow into for the rest of his career.
deluca67 Posted January 17, 2009 Report Posted January 17, 2009 Sitting here reading posters defend Stafford's hit I have wonder how many would be calling for a supension if it were the other way around. Hits seem to get cleaner when they are thrown by the home town team. When they are wearing the Blue and Gold it's just good physical hockey. Stafford's hit was a predatory hit that many have posted against over the past few seasons. It was at least a interference penalty since the player no longer had the puck. That said, I was glad to see a Sabre actually throw a hit like that instead of being laid out with one.
SwampD Posted January 17, 2009 Report Posted January 17, 2009 Sitting here reading posters defend Stafford's hit I have wonder how many would be calling for a supension if it were the other way around. Hits seem to get cleaner when they are thrown by the home town team. When they are wearing the Blue and Gold it's just good physical hockey. Stafford's hit was a predatory hit that many have posted against over the past few seasons. It was at least a interference penalty since the player no longer had the puck. That said, I was glad to see a Sabre actually throw a hit like that instead of being laid out with one. :blink: So, where I don't think it was a dirty hit. You see it as a dirty hit but are glad to see it. Again, :blink:
Stoner Posted January 17, 2009 Report Posted January 17, 2009 I am one of them. One of the eight women?
carpandean Posted January 17, 2009 Report Posted January 17, 2009 It was at least a interference penalty since the player no longer had the puck. There is no way that was interference. He literally hit him right after the shot was released. Even on the slow-motion replay, it's still right after the puck comes out. That's not interference. You are allowed to finish your check after the puck is released; that's what he did. There may be question about whether or not his elbow came up before the hit (more than just for bracing), but it was not late, not by the rules of the game. There are literally dozens of legal hits in every game that come longer after the puck came out than Stafford's did. You are right that most of us would be calling for a suspension if the teams were reversed -- I said as much in a previous post -- but hits also seem dirtier when they are on a player in blue and gold. If the league had made any contact with the head illegal, letting a player come through the center with his head down untouched, then his hit would have been illegal. Under the current rules, it was not late and, at worst, was borderline elbowing (though, again, as in the Neil hit on Drury, I'm not even convinced it was that; on the contrary, I don't believe that either was.)
rickshaw Posted January 17, 2009 Report Posted January 17, 2009 Guys, that hit was absolutely fine. It was nothing like Neil's hit on Drury. The puck was just released and he came at him from the side and kept his arms down and didn't try to explode his force on the player. Neil came from the behind - side and lifted his arms and used force while doing so. I have no issue with that hit if it's one of our guys receiving it. It's funny how it's ok to "finish a check" along the boards 3 seconds after the puck is gone, but his hit isn't in some eyes? I don't even think he hit him in the head. I think he gets him in the shoulder and the impact gave him the woozies.
inkman Posted January 17, 2009 Author Report Posted January 17, 2009 One of the eight women? No, that's Kristian.
Neo Posted January 17, 2009 Report Posted January 17, 2009 jim kelley thinks the hit was a cheapshot elbow to the head: http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2009/01/15/...ion_conference/ Jim Kelley thinks it is. Finally, evidence that it isn't.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.