SwampD Posted November 12, 2009 Report Posted November 12, 2009 And with all the complaints about Vanek's ice time lately, he may have spent more time in the box than on the ice. 6 minutes of his own plus the 5 for MacArthur. Did he really serve it? I didn't see that. What kind of power trip is that for Lindy. I'm not happy about Vanek's time either but it wasn't THAT big of a deal to me. But why put Vanek in the box. That is a stupid move by Lindy. Does he really need to break him down that much and make him a good little soldier? What other coach puts his top goal scorer in the box for five minutes.
Stoner Posted November 12, 2009 Report Posted November 12, 2009 I hate to say it, but there's no way that should be a major. Penalty, yes, but not a major. It's based on the degree of violence of the impact into the boards. It was pretty violent.
Stoner Posted November 12, 2009 Report Posted November 12, 2009 Did he really serve it? I didn't see that. What kind of power trip is that for Lindy. I'm not happy about Vanek's time either but it wasn't THAT big of a deal to me. But why put Vanek in the box. That is a stupid move by Lindy. Does he really need to break him down that much and make him a good little soldier? What other coach puts his top goal scorer in the box for five minutes. Ding ding ding. We have a winner. :)
DR HOLLIDAY Posted November 12, 2009 Report Posted November 12, 2009 It's based on the degree of violence of the impact into the boards. It was pretty violent. Agreed
ROC Sabres Posted November 12, 2009 Report Posted November 12, 2009 And of course the typical NHL idiot player tried to attack MacArthur while he was on top of the injured player. It couldn't have been any more clear that MacArthur was worried and checking on the guy. Nice work by the linesman preventing that from going any further. Thought the same thing. He knew he hurt him and dropped to check on him instead of digging the puck out of his face like a lot of players would. Going after a guy while he is checking on the other teams player is just appalling. He gives a damn about the other teams players so we should try to hit him... no.
darksabre Posted November 12, 2009 Report Posted November 12, 2009 I liked Roby's point during the intermission when asked about changes to the game. He thinks intent needs to be taken out of the equation when it comes to suspensions. Intent can never be measured anyway. That was a big-time board. If we can't measure intent then why is it the basis of every judicial system in the United States? Intent can be determined. Bertuzzi intended to destroy Moore. MacArthur was trying to shoulder his way to the puck like every player does every time they go to the boards. This type of play happens in every game and a majority of the time both players go to the boards, no harm no foul. But MacArthur didn't get into Reddox's shoulder as Reddox leaned forward to get a step on him, and instead MacArthur got him in the left Trapezeus area (it's the only way I can describe that region) and it sent Reddox into the boards funny. Hockey play gone wrong? Yes. Intent to harm? Doubtful.
SwampD Posted November 12, 2009 Report Posted November 12, 2009 If we can't measure intent then why is it the basis of every judicial system in the United States? Intent can be determined. Bertuzzi intended to destroy Moore. MacArthur was trying to shoulder his way to the puck like every player does every time they go to the boards. This type of play happens in every game and a majority of the time both players go to the boards, no harm no foul. But MacArthur didn't get into Reddox's shoulder as Reddox leaned forward to get a step on him, and instead MacArthur got him in the left Trapezeus area (it's the only way I can describe that region) and it sent Reddox into the boards funny. Hockey play gone wrong? Yes. Intent to harm? Doubtful. Yes. It also didn't help that Reddox was already on his way into the boards awkwardly had Mac not laid a finger on him.
Stoner Posted November 12, 2009 Report Posted November 12, 2009 If we can't measure intent then why is it the basis of every judicial system in the United States? Intent can be determined. Bertuzzi intended to destroy Moore. MacArthur was trying to shoulder his way to the puck like every player does every time they go to the boards. This type of play happens in every game and a majority of the time both players go to the boards, no harm no foul. But MacArthur didn't get into Reddox's shoulder as Reddox leaned forward to get a step on him, and instead MacArthur got him in the left Trapezeus area (it's the only way I can describe that region) and it sent Reddox into the boards funny. Hockey play gone wrong? Yes. Intent to harm? Doubtful. Stop messing with my mind so late. Not fair. I just don't see how you can get in MacArthur's mind. Sometimes it is obvious. You've cited perhaps the most over the top example in NHL history. Most times intent can't be discerned, which is why Roby makes a great point.
shrader Posted November 12, 2009 Report Posted November 12, 2009 It's based on the degree of violence of the impact into the boards. It was pretty violent. The player also has the responsibility of not putting himself in a position that will lead to that result. This one was a combination of mistakes by both guys.
Stoner Posted November 12, 2009 Report Posted November 12, 2009 Yes. It also didn't help that Reddox was already on his way into the boards awkwardly had Mac not laid a finger on him. Isn't this just another version of the "head down" theory? Yeah, the guy's losing his balance, so by all means, take advantage and drive that sucker into the boards.
Stoner Posted November 12, 2009 Report Posted November 12, 2009 The player also has the responsibility of not putting himself in a position that will lead to that result. This one was a combination of mistakes by both guys. Oh wow. See the comment above. Haven't we both decried this kind of thinking?
jad1 Posted November 12, 2009 Report Posted November 12, 2009 Did he really serve it? I didn't see that. What kind of power trip is that for Lindy. I'm not happy about Vanek's time either but it wasn't THAT big of a deal to me. But why put Vanek in the box. That is a stupid move by Lindy. Does he really need to break him down that much and make him a good little soldier? What other coach puts his top goal scorer in the box for five minutes. Who else should have served the penalty? The Sabres were protecting a one goal lead, were down two forwards (Grier and MacArthur), and had to kill off a 5 minute penalty. The other top 5 forwards are better penalty killers than Vanek. Kennedy, Ellis, and Kaleta all have more to offer than Vanek does on a long penalty kill. Vanek could have spent the long penalty kill either nailed to the bench or in the box. Ruff was smart to kill two birds with one stone.
rickshaw Posted November 12, 2009 Report Posted November 12, 2009 Not a great showing by our guys tonight. Thought we started well but it was not good to keep the Oilers hanging around. Thought the officials were a bit one sided tonight but that's life I guess. Unlucky break on the Oilers' goal. Myers hammered the puck and it hit the guy in the arm and stayed in, very unlucky break. I liked how are pk looks though. PP is a different story. Vanek is playing his way out of Buffalo, or looks like he's trying to play his way out. Awful again tonight. Bad hit but I don't think it was malicious. Miller is playing amazing. Robbed that guy on the 2 on 1. Incredible save. Liked Myers again tonight. Some blips, but he sure is calm for being so raw. A win is a win, but it needs to be better. Montador was the best player on the ice tonight.
... Posted November 12, 2009 Report Posted November 12, 2009 Hey, great game by Vanek! Way to get the assist and the penalties. Good job, guy. Any check against the boards is "violent" by any definition. In fact any hit in the game is "violent". Hockey, by its nature (you know, bodies in motion, kinetic energy, etc.), is a "violent" game. So, the degree of "violence" with regards to a boarding is relatively small when measured against the violent nature of the game. I can't imagine anyone here would even say it was doubtful MacArthur would intend to injure someone, especially in that manner. Was there intent to injure? Absolutely not. I feel for MacArthur, because now half the league is going to label the guy something he is not.
rickshaw Posted November 12, 2009 Report Posted November 12, 2009 Did he really serve it? I didn't see that. What kind of power trip is that for Lindy. I'm not happy about Vanek's time either but it wasn't THAT big of a deal to me. But why put Vanek in the box. That is a stupid move by Lindy. Does he really need to break him down that much and make him a good little soldier? What other coach puts his top goal scorer in the box for five minutes. Hate to break it to you, but he's not playing like their top scorer. In fact, I think he and Myers are tied in points. Maybe if Vanek worked hard, each and every shift, he'd play more.
SwampD Posted November 12, 2009 Report Posted November 12, 2009 Isn't this just another version of the "head down" theory? Yeah, the guy's losing his balance, so by all means, take advantage and drive that sucker into the boards. Not at all. At the speed these guys play, Mac doesn't have time to realize if Reddox is making a move or falling or whatever, so he does what he does every single time he goes to the boards with another player and puts a shoulder into him. I use the "What else is he supposed to do?" rule. If Mac lets up and Reddox is just making some crazy move, gets by him and makes with a breakaway pass that ties up the game, everyone is killing him for just being another "soft" Sabre. All it was was an unfortunate play. That's it.
jad1 Posted November 12, 2009 Report Posted November 12, 2009 Hate to break it to you, but he's not playing like their top scorer. In fact, I think he and Myers are tied in points. Maybe if Vanek worked hard, each and every shift, he'd play more. That's the key. This guy has become completely useless outside the 5 feet in front of the opponent's net. It's time he wakes up, and I have no problem with Ruff nailing his ass to the bench until he decides that he wants to earn his paycheck.
SwampD Posted November 12, 2009 Report Posted November 12, 2009 Who else should have served the penalty? The Sabres were protecting a one goal lead, were down two forwards (Grier and MacArthur), and had to kill off a 5 minute penalty. The other top 5 forwards are better penalty killers than Vanek. Kennedy, Ellis, and Kaleta all have more to offer than Vanek does on a long penalty kill. Vanek could have spent the long penalty kill either nailed to the bench or in the box. Ruff was smart to kill two birds with one stone. What if the Oilers score two in the first two minutes of that 5 minute power play, then the refs actually call Penner's hook on Jochen. Now our leading goal scorer the past 4 years is in the box for three more minutes while we are trying to tie it up 4 on 4! Nice strategy. Hate to break it to you, but he's not playing like their top scorer. In fact, I think he and Myers are tied in points. Maybe if Vanek worked hard, each and every shift, he'd play more. Him setting up the first goal was just weak. [/sarc]
wonderbread Posted November 12, 2009 Report Posted November 12, 2009 Vanek is playing like he forgot how to. Mac didn't mean to crush Reddox IMO. As far as Miller he played out of his mind. Grier left with a groin injury I heard that may not bode well. I hate this team...oh wait they won. Listening to Montador on the postgame he sounds similar to Spacho without the horrible accent.
jad1 Posted November 12, 2009 Report Posted November 12, 2009 What if the Oilers score two in the first two minutes of that 5 minute power play, then the refs actually call Penner's hook on Jochen. Now our leading goal scorer the past 4 years is in the box for three more minutes while we are trying to tie it up 4 on 4! Nice strategy. Him setting up the first goal was just weak. [/sarc] Well, it's a good thing that Ruff had players who were committed to giving a full effort on the ice to kill that penalty, so they didn't have to rely on Miro Vanek for the win. [/sarc] And that diving penalty was the weakest thing I've seen this season from this team. Either "the leading scorer the past 4 years" was blown over by a strong breeze on his move to the net or he actually dove, taking himself out of a prime scoring chance. Even worse was when he left the box after serving his third penalty and iced the puck while standing two feet behind the center line, forcing the guys who just killed his penalty to stay on the ice for another shift. Yeah, nice assist. Too bad he completely sucked the rest of the game.
rickshaw Posted November 12, 2009 Report Posted November 12, 2009 Props to the guy in the stands wearing his brand new 3rd jersey with 89 on it. Nice!
end the curse Posted November 12, 2009 Report Posted November 12, 2009 In my opinion, Reddox took a very reckless angle towards the puck with MacArthur racing him to the wall. He dipped his back towards Mac, who pushed off against him to create the big impact. Players need to realize that despite the fact they are wearing enough body armor to survive machine gun fire, they are still very vulnerable to impact injuries to the head. A player needs to know he can't twist his back towards a player while heading full speed into the boards...it's this false sense of invincibility that's causing way too many dangerous injuries in the NHL today.
SwampD Posted November 12, 2009 Report Posted November 12, 2009 Well, it's a good thing that Ruff had players who were committed to giving a full effort on the ice to kill that penalty, so they didn't have to rely on Miro Vanek for the win. [/sarc] And that diving penalty was the weakest thing I've seen this season from this team. Either "the leading scorer the past 4 years" was blown over by a strong breeze on his move to the net or he actually dove, taking himself out of a prime scoring chance. Even worse was when he left the box after serving his third penalty and iced the puck while standing two feet behind the center line, forcing the guys who just killed his penalty to stay on the ice for another shift. Yeah, nice assist. Too bad he completely sucked the rest of the game. There is no way Vanek would be any worse than Kaleta in any PK situation you can think of. In fact he may have even scored a shortie. I seem to remember him doing that the last time he was on the PK (it was just about a year ago today). This was nothing more than a power move by Ruff. What's next, the roving captaincy so that no one gets too big for their britches?
carpandean Posted November 12, 2009 Report Posted November 12, 2009 What if the Oilers score two in the first two minutes of that 5 minute power play, then the refs actually call Penner's hook on Jochen. Now our leading goal scorer the past 4 years is in the box for three more minutes while we are trying to tie it up 4 on 4! Nice strategy. I haven't checked the rules, but are you sure that you can't swap out a player who is just serving a penalty for another player?
Stoner Posted November 12, 2009 Report Posted November 12, 2009 Who else should have served the penalty? The Sabres were protecting a one goal lead, were down two forwards (Grier and MacArthur), and had to kill off a 5 minute penalty. The other top 5 forwards are better penalty killers than Vanek. Kennedy, Ellis, and Kaleta all have more to offer than Vanek does on a long penalty kill. Vanek could have spent the long penalty kill either nailed to the bench or in the box. Ruff was smart to kill two birds with one stone. Good thoughts. But Kennedy? It's tough to find forwards with less shorthanded ice time this year than Vanek, but he's one of them. You'll have to tell Lindy that Kennedy has something to offer the PK. And Drew Stafford had killed 11 seconds all season, but he got some time on that kill. This was about humiliating Vanek. As was putting him out with 19 seconds left.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.