darksabre Posted November 12, 2009 Report Posted November 12, 2009 Go play an NHL game and come back. Sorry, I hate when people try to relate what happens in a beer league to the pros. Didn't MacArthur drive whatshisname into the boards? You speak of juries. Wouldn't a non-hockey jury rule that MacArthur caused the dude to be driven into the boards? What's the difference between the NHL and beer league except for talent level? The rules are generally the same, and this type of play happens in beer leagues too. And in college hockey, and in minors, etc. I don't think they would. Reddox was already in motion towards the boards, and was already in a vulnerable position when MacArthur hit him at an awkward angle during an attempt to go shoulder to shoulder with Reddox. Although you could argue causation if this were outside of a hockey game, you really can't here, because this was contact between two players who, by entering into contract with a team in the NHL, have pretty much denounced injury as a result of negligence because in sport, most injuries are unexpected. It'd be like a demolition derby driver getting hurt when a car backs into him. He knows the risks involved, and he's agreed that he might sustain injury. If a player very powerfully crosschecks someone into the boards, you could argue recklessness because they offending player would have known that the outcome of his actions would be injury, and would have deviated from a normal course of action do it. The injury to Reddox occurred during a normal course of action and the result was unexpected. It was a player who lost position shoving a player that worked harder to gain position into the boards. It wasn't a "hockey play" it was a lazy play. The "hockey play" would have been for MacArthur not to give up position so easily and then take the lazy way out. There are dozens of "hockey plays" that happen each night and some that result in injuries. They don't get mentioned because they are recognized as "hockey play." What MacArthur did was the wrong play not "hockey." Then I guess your opinion of how the sport of hockey is played is different than mine. Every time I watch the video, it looks like MacArthur is trying for the usual shoulder-to-shoulder, lets see who wins the battle for the puck type hit. Reddox tried to get in there first and ends up under Clarke's hit. The hit to Reddox's back was done as much to keep himself from falling on Reddox as anything. In fact, he ends up planting his own face into the boards in the process. I've seen a lot of dirty hits to the back, but at most, I would say that Clarke simply misjudged what Reddox was going to do (and vice versa.) Unfortunate, but not dirty. Penalty? Yes. Suspension? No. You may say that I have Sabres blinders on, but I've said of other hits, by other teams, that it wasn't intentional. Look at the OV play on Briere. That was even more deliberate and I still don't believe that OV meant to plow Danny's face into the boards. There, I'm sure that he meant to bump him, but not to send him flying. Here, it wasn't even that bad. Clarke tried to battle for the puck, as usual, but because of how they actual met, ended up helping Reddox into the boards. This. As always, another knowledgeable post.
mikegrier Posted November 12, 2009 Report Posted November 12, 2009 It's a crappy strategy if you ask me. I could see it maybe on a 2 min. But to sacrifice him for 5 min on the off chance that he'll get a breakaway is pretty silly. I bet the numbers don't back it up either. I know I've seen more shorthanded goals than breakaways coming out of the box, let alone goals that resulted from them. Well I guess you'll have to take that one up with Lindy then man
SwampD Posted November 12, 2009 Report Posted November 12, 2009 Well I guess you'll have to take that one up with Lindy then man I think I will...get me Bill Hoppe.
wjag Posted November 12, 2009 Report Posted November 12, 2009 Silly question, but was Reddox injured on the play? He stayed down a long time, but did walk off with assistance. Is he out or was he just fazed? So I just looked it up. Gash on the face and xrays on a possible wrist. Certainly looked like more than a wrist the way he stayed down. Hope he is alright.
wjag Posted November 12, 2009 Report Posted November 12, 2009 I wish I hadn't jokingly made the comment about Vanek serving the penalty. It has the tinfoil hat brigade all up in arms again. Anyway, Kennedy is the center for our top defensive line. I'm not aware of the amount of time he has been on the ice for a PK, but he's going to be a much better option than Vanek thanks to being one of the teams better defensive options. He's also got the ability to take a faceoff. You never know what can happen, so that's a skill you want available to you in case you need it on the long PK. As for Stafford, I didn't notice him out there, but it was probably right when the penalty was about to expire. They get Connolly and Stafford out there so that when Vanek steps out of the box, a regular line is in place. I think it was wjag who complained earlier about Vanek stepping out of the ice and immediately icing a puck at one point. That was a very weak call. It was a very soft dump and the defenseman stopped chasing it as it approached the goal line. Should have been waived off. On top of that, there should have been a Sabre there to shepherd the puck across the blueline while teammates were changing. Pretty basic. That's what I meant above when I said the icing call really wasn't Vanek's fault. Okay fair enough.. I don't think I 'complained'.. Just noted it was one of the worst gaffs I've seen in a while. It was the end of a long penalty kill that had the Sabres trapped in their zone. If the Oilers scored as a result of that, there would have been a non stop barbacue of Vanek today.
Eleven Posted November 13, 2009 Report Posted November 13, 2009 Okay fair enough.. I don't think I 'complained'.. Just noted it was one of the worst gaffs I've seen in a while. It was the end of a long penalty kill that had the Sabres trapped in their zone. If the Oilers scored as a result of that, there would have been a non stop barbacue of Vanek today. True dat.
shrader Posted November 13, 2009 Report Posted November 13, 2009 Okay fair enough.. I don't think I 'complained'.. Just noted it was one of the worst gaffs I've seen in a while. It was the end of a long penalty kill that had the Sabres trapped in their zone. If the Oilers scored as a result of that, there would have been a non stop barbacue of Vanek today. I would've called for the linesman's head. ;)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.