X. Benedict Posted March 30, 2009 Report Posted March 30, 2009 Might have scored on it. See, I just like to instigate. Okay, but you're tagged with an extra two when we go to the box. :lol:
tom webster Posted March 30, 2009 Report Posted March 30, 2009 Fair enough. You can have the last word. Can we at least agree Kaleta's play has been one of the bright stories in a disappointing season where some other young players have regressed? Butler too. With a strong finish Miller could be the best story. Vanek's season has gone in the dumper. He was a feel good story for awhile. Connolly is shoving it down his critics' throats, for the most part. Can we find common ground, brother? I would agree with most of that and add that to me the biggest disappointment has been the play of Roy and Vanek down the stretch and that the regression of Stafford after a strong 30 or 40 games isn't far behind.
SarasotaSabre Posted March 30, 2009 Report Posted March 30, 2009 I already said Lapierre could have avoided the hit. We all see things differently. I see Kaleta taking a look at Lapierre bearing down, turning and bending over slightly to brace for the hit. He thought he was going to buy a call. He did. He also apparently bought another concussion. I'm not saying it was a clean hit or not worthy of a penalty. I just think the ref saw it for what it was and got it right. Being a Sabre fan doesn't require me to think otherwise. Sorry. That's a great video by the way. I think Ed Sullivan just introduced Elvis. That's really the only part of this thread that is odd, IMO.....who are you or anyone to be in the business of knowing Kaleta's intent? You might be able to think perhaps he wanted to buy a call, but to say you know it to be true is specious at best.
LabattBlue Posted March 30, 2009 Report Posted March 30, 2009 I would agree with most of that and add that to me the biggest disappointment has been the play of Roy and Vanek down the stretch and that the regression of Stafford after a strong 30 or 40 games isn't far behind. I agree with this 100%. You need your best players to step up when the season is on the line and the 3 players you mentioned have all been lackluster during the month of March. In addition, this is when they were needed the most(generating offense) to make up for the loss of Miller.
Stoner Posted March 30, 2009 Report Posted March 30, 2009 That's really the only part of this thread that is odd, IMO.....who are you or anyone to be in the business of knowing Kaleta's intent? You might be able to think perhaps he wanted to buy a call, but to say you know it to be true is specious at best. I think he thought he was going to buy a call. :) No, you're absolutely right.
wonderbread Posted March 30, 2009 Report Posted March 30, 2009 I think he thought he was going to buy a call. :) No, you're absolutely right. But do you feel that the hit was worth a suspension?
Stoner Posted March 30, 2009 Report Posted March 30, 2009 But do you feel that the hit was worth a suspension? In a perfect world, or league, sure. I'd like to see all this garbage taken out of the game, including players putting themselves in vulnerable positions to draw a penalty. I'd like to see coaches whose players do that get suspended. But this is the NHL. There will be no suspensions. The league doesn't think it can survive without the garbage, and it's probably right.
SwampD Posted March 30, 2009 Report Posted March 30, 2009 In a perfect world, or league, sure. I'd like to see all this garbage taken out of the game, including players putting themselves in vulnerable positions to draw a penalty. I'd like to see coaches whose players do that get suspended. But this is the NHL. There will be no suspensions. The league doesn't think it can survive without the garbage, and it's probably right. I just want to say that I find it interesting, PA, that you are so quick to make a conclusion about Kaleta's intent(that he was trying to draw a penalty). And yet you can't seem to make a similar conclusion about Lapierre's intent of trying to injure Kaleta. And when did trying to draw a penalty become a bad thing?
spndnchz Posted March 30, 2009 Author Report Posted March 30, 2009 I just want to say that I find it interesting, PA, that you are so quick to make a conclusion about Kaleta's intent(that he was trying to draw a penalty). And yet you can't seem to make a similar conclusion about Lapierre's intent of trying to injure Kaleta. And when did trying to draw a penalty become a bad thing? ...and when did shielding the opposing player with your body become illegal? They've been doing that for years. If this same exact play had taken place away from the boards I think most, if not all, of us would be fine with it. It was along the wall, from behind, with intent to injure.
Stoner Posted March 30, 2009 Report Posted March 30, 2009 I just want to say that I find it interesting, PA, that you are so quick to make a conclusion about Kaleta's intent(that he was trying to draw a penalty). And yet you can't seem to make a similar conclusion about Lapierre's intent of trying to injure Kaleta. And when did trying to draw a penalty become a bad thing? Correct. To answer the question. When Kaleta's brain got scrambled -- again.
Stoner Posted March 30, 2009 Report Posted March 30, 2009 ...and when did shielding the opposing player with your body become illegal? They've been doing that for years. If this same exact play had taken place away from the boards I think most, if not all, of us would be fine with it. It was along the wall, from behind, with intent to injure. Wouldn't that be a check from behind?
SwampD Posted March 30, 2009 Report Posted March 30, 2009 Wouldn't that be a check from behind? So, with a check from behind along the boards, wouldn't intent to injure be implied? .... Think about it.
spndnchz Posted March 30, 2009 Author Report Posted March 30, 2009 As per Lindy, Kaleta was clear headed today, rode the bike with no symptoms, practice on Tuesday and may play Wednesday. He says the league looked at it and there will be NO response from the league. He also said Sekera may sit on Wednesday and Teppo's in. He thinks Sekera has gotten worse, scared under pressure. Says watching the game might help him more than playing. Will put Teppo and Spach together.
Stoner Posted March 30, 2009 Report Posted March 30, 2009 So, with a check from behind along the boards, wouldn't intent to injure be implied? .... Think about it. OK, I thought about it. Do you want to give every player guilty of boarding or checking from behind a match penalty? I'm fine with it, but the league will never take violence and mayhem out of the game.
SwampD Posted March 30, 2009 Report Posted March 30, 2009 OK, I thought about it. Do you want to give every player guilty of boarding or checking from behind a match penalty? I'm fine with it, but the league will never take violence and mayhem out of the game. Checking from behind...No. Boarding...Maybe. It's the one play where players get inured on a regular basis, so maybe it has to go. And the more I think about it, I would bet that Lapierre thinks he got away with one. He had to know that going into that hit, he was going to get at least 2mins. The risk/reward was just too great for him to not try and take Kaleta out of the game. If all he got was 2 then he accomplished exactly what set to do. If the risk was being ejected from the game, maybe he wouldn't have done it. But there is no way that he saw the name on the back of that jersey and didn't think that it was going to be worth it to take that penalty. That's intent.
spndnchz Posted March 30, 2009 Author Report Posted March 30, 2009 OK, I thought about it. Do you want to give every player guilty of boarding or checking from behind a match penalty? I'm fine with it, but the league will never take violence and mayhem out of the game. I don't think it should have been a match penalty, but definitely more than 2 minutes.
That Aud Smell Posted March 30, 2009 Report Posted March 30, 2009 I don't think it should have been a match penalty, but definitely more than 2 minutes. so, it wasn't ruled a hit from behind -- i see that now. which makes sense, since there's no minor penalty for hitting from behind (44.2 below). http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26333 Rule 44 - Checking from Behind 44.1 Checking from Behind ? A check from behind is a check delivered on a player who is not aware of the impending hit, therefore unable to protect or defend himself, and contact is made on the back part of the body. When a player intentionally turns his body to create contact with his back, no penalty shall be assessed. 44.2 Minor Penalty - There is no provision for a minor penalty for checking from behind. 44.3 Major Penalty ? Any player or goalkeeper who cross-checks, pushes or charges from behind an opponent who is unable to protect or defend himself, shall be assessed a major penalty. This penalty applies anywhere on the playing surface (see 44.5). 44.4 Match Penalty - The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a match penalty if, in his judgment, the player or goalkeeper attempted to or deliberately injured his opponent by checking from behind. 44.5 Game Misconduct ? A game misconduct penalty must be assessed anytime a major penalty is applied for checking from behind. 44.6 Fines and Suspensions - Any player or goalkeeper who incurs a total of two (2) game misconducts under Rule 42 and/or Rule 44, in either theRegular season or Play-offs, shall be suspended automatically for the next game of his team. For each subsequent game misconduct penalty the automatic suspension shall be increased by one game. If deemed appropriate, supplementary discipline can be applied by the Commissioner at his discretion (refer to Rule 29). ----------------------- and, fwiw, i don't speak french, but i think i heard the homer announcers speculating that "the peter" would receive a "match" penalty. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qndkyBZP74&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qndkyBZP74&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
bottlecap Posted March 31, 2009 Report Posted March 31, 2009 This is why I want the Sabres lineup next year to be filled with hardasses. So Kaleta doesn't have to stick up for himself all the time. Because everyone else, except maybe two or three, is a candy ass. That's the second concussion from a cheapshot on Kaleta this year. I hope if he has a memory bank left, he stores this away, not only for Lapierre and Gauthier, but the refs who didn't call these intentional maimings. The trick is to make it look like it was an accident or "unintentional." Or better yet teammates who stick up for him to drive the offender through the ice.
Ohiofan Posted March 31, 2009 Report Posted March 31, 2009 How long is this kid gonna last with everyone headhunting him? It really sucks...someone's gonna knock him out of the game for good.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.