X. Benedict Posted April 18, 2011 Report Posted April 18, 2011 No extra punishment for Torres. right call IMO.
darksabre Posted April 18, 2011 Report Posted April 18, 2011 What was said after the game last night? I know Queneville was yelling for a 5-minute major right after it happened, but that's par for the course to try and get your team a longer PP (whether or not you think it's deserved). If Seabrook was whining about it, maybe he's just trying to get Torres out for a game just to give his team any advantage they can get? I'm re-thinking any whining going on about the huge hits these days. I don't know if the whiner is just being a baby or if he's just trying to goad the league into giving out punishment and getting under the skin of the opponent. He was whining today about how he didn't have the puck and that it was cheap and wah wah wah wah woe is me I make millions of dollars but can't be careful enough to glance to my left quickly. <_<
Sabre Dance Posted April 18, 2011 Report Posted April 18, 2011 He was whining today about how he didn't have the puck and that it was cheap and wah wah wah wah woe is me I make millions of dollars but can't be careful enough to glance to my left quickly. <_< Hmmm... Dan Marouelli was on Hockey Night in Canada last night and he thought the hit met all the criteria for a match penalty - Torres just came off a suspension, hit to the head, etc. Easier to blame the victim, I guess.:blink:
X. Benedict Posted April 18, 2011 Report Posted April 18, 2011 Hmmm... Dan Marouelli was on Hockey Night in Canada last night and he thought the hit met all the criteria for a match penalty - Torres just came off a suspension, hit to the head, etc. Easier to blame the victim, I guess.:blink: Interesting about Marouelli.....not an impartial observer IMO....he suspended about 4 guys out of the World Juniors (including Zack Kassian) for high hits. It is part of an IIHF agenda...though not necessarily a bad agenda.
Braedon Posted April 18, 2011 Report Posted April 18, 2011 If that was against us, I guarantee that many of your perceptions would be different. My take, he didn't intend to go head but as it was he got him square. I may be in the minority but I thought it should was worthy of further repercussion. It speaks more to the bush league being inconsistent than the legality of the hit.
SwampD Posted April 18, 2011 Report Posted April 18, 2011 It wasn't blindside or lateral IMO. If you put that play at center ice, with all the angles and hit exactly the same (or if it's Kaleta), it's a suspension.
K-9 Posted April 19, 2011 Report Posted April 19, 2011 Damn, Kunitz needs to go for the rest of the playoffs after the cheapy on Gagne. Is Pittsburgh coached to play that way? If so, they are taking chances with Crosby's health. All it will take is one retaliatory drive-by elbow like the one Kunitz gave to Gagne. Pitiful display. GO SABRES!!!
... Posted April 19, 2011 Report Posted April 19, 2011 If you put that play at center ice, with all the angles and hit exactly the same (or if it's Kaleta), it's a suspension. I wanted to bring this up the other day. Would the Umberger hit in today's NHL have resulted in a suspension?
bunomatic Posted April 19, 2011 Report Posted April 19, 2011 I wanted to bring this up the other day. Would the Umberger hit in today's NHL have resulted in a suspension? The umberger hit was straight on from the front wasn,t it? A clean hit by any standard.
Braedon Posted April 19, 2011 Report Posted April 19, 2011 The umberger hit was straight on from the front wasn,t it? A clean hit by any standard. He hit him coming slightly from the left but I can't see that being a penalty even today.
shrader Posted April 19, 2011 Report Posted April 19, 2011 If you put that play at center ice, with all the angles and hit exactly the same (or if it's Kaleta), it's a suspension. Hypotheticals like this mean absolutely nothing. It's not what could have happened, it's what did happen. At center ice that hit can come from any direction. For Seabrook, there was that giant netted object to his left, which means the hit could only come from two directions. If he's not aware of that possibility, he's an idiot.
Buffalo Wings Posted April 19, 2011 Report Posted April 19, 2011 He hit him coming slightly from the left but I can't see that being a penalty even today. But it was much more "face-to-face" than Torres' hit on Seabrook. Umberger had his head down and NEVER saw Campbell coming...same way Eric Lindros got leveled by Scott Stevens years ago.
X. Benedict Posted April 19, 2011 Report Posted April 19, 2011 I wanted to bring this up the other day. Would the Umberger hit in today's NHL have resulted in a suspension? no way.
Eleven Posted April 19, 2011 Report Posted April 19, 2011 One game each for Kunitz and Downie per tsn.ca
X. Benedict Posted April 19, 2011 Report Posted April 19, 2011 One game each for Kunitz and Downie per tsn.ca :blink: a completely feckless response. nice job Collie. <_<
Braedon Posted April 19, 2011 Report Posted April 19, 2011 But it was much more "face-to-face" than Torres' hit on Seabrook. Umberger had his head down and NEVER saw Campbell coming...same way Eric Lindros got leveled by Scott Stevens years ago. In relation to the Torres hit, yes. Either way Campbell's hit was legal and still is today. I see it as Seabrook's head exposed and though it's hard to be precise when skating that fast, he still got the head. Of course the NHL doesn't think so. Not sure what your argument is about not seeing it coming, Seabrook didn't see it coming either.
shrader Posted April 19, 2011 Report Posted April 19, 2011 In relation to the Torres hit, yes. Either way Campbell's hit was legal and still is today. I see it as Seabrook's head exposed and though it's hard to be precise when skating that fast, he still got the head. Of course the NHL doesn't think so. Whether or not he got hit in the head is completely irrelevant. There is nothing in the NHL rulebook that states you cannot hit someone in the head. Conditions have to be met before that question comes into play.
Weave Posted April 19, 2011 Report Posted April 19, 2011 Whether or not he got hit in the head is completely irrelevant. There is nothing in the NHL rulebook that states you cannot hit someone in the head. Conditions have to be met before that question comes into play. I think that is the part that is getting forgotten here. It is still legal to hit someone in the head as long as it isn't blindside.
Braedon Posted April 19, 2011 Report Posted April 19, 2011 Whether or not he got hit in the head is completely irrelevant. There is nothing in the NHL rulebook that states you cannot hit someone in the head. Conditions have to be met before that question comes into play. Let me qualify that. I contest it was a blind side. His body was turned towards the glass, and his head never turned. He was looking down and to the right the entire time. So in my estimation, he was blind to the hit.
shrader Posted April 19, 2011 Report Posted April 19, 2011 Let me qualify that. I contest it was a blind side. His body was turned towards the glass, and his head never turned. He was looking down and to the right the entire time. So in my estimation, he was blind to the hit. Which brings it back to the point I made a day or two ago about the NHL coming up with vaguely written rules. What exactly qualifies as "blindside" anyway? If a guy is skating one way but looking back behind him, does that mean he can only be hit from behind? That's a ruling that would never fly.
Braedon Posted April 19, 2011 Report Posted April 19, 2011 Which brings it back to the point I made a day or two ago about the NHL coming up with vaguely written rules. What exactly qualifies as "blindside" anyway? If a guy is skating one way but looking back behind him, does that mean he can only be hit from behind? That's a ruling that would never fly. Absolutely right, it's vague. What does 'principle point of contact is not permitted' mean? It's legal speak to allow room for interpretation. But that argument about looking back is forgetting the condition. If he is blind to you AND it's determined that you targeted the head, it's an infraction. No reason you can't destroy him without hitting him in the head. I guess the issue isn't even the blind side, it's did he intentionally target the head. I'm sensitive to the head issues because I saw enough head injuries to last a lifetime. It's there to protect the player, all we need is one fatality and society would eat the NHL for lunch.
spndnchz Posted April 19, 2011 Author Report Posted April 19, 2011 Absolutely right, it's vague. What does 'principle point of contact is not permitted' mean? It's legal speak to allow room for interpretation. But that argument about looking back is forgetting the condition. If he is blind to you AND it's determined that you targeted the head, it's an infraction. No reason you can't destroy him without hitting him in the head. I guess the issue isn't even the blind side, it's did he intentionally target the head. I'm sensitive to the head issues because I saw enough head injuries to last a lifetime. It's there to protect the player, all we need is one fatality and society would eat the NHL for lunch. I read somewhere that there's a 'memo' out, seriously, that the space behind the net is considered a 'hitting area' or something to that effect and the Rule 48 does not apply. Edit: Found it. Hitting area meaning NOT that you can just rape and pillage behind the net but meaning when two skaters are coming from opposite sides of the net, there’s some responsibility on the skater to look where he is going or in this case, what's coming. Remember, the BOG did not outlaw hits to the head, just the way it gets hit.
Braedon Posted April 19, 2011 Report Posted April 19, 2011 I don't doubt it. And I do think Seabrook deserves some of the blame for being a dumba$s and picking daisies back there.
... Posted April 19, 2011 Report Posted April 19, 2011 Which brings it back to the point I made a day or two ago about the NHL coming up with vaguely written rules. What exactly qualifies as "blindside" anyway? If a guy is skating one way but looking back behind him, does that mean he can only be hit from behind? That's a ruling that would never fly. That's why I was wondering about the Umberger hit; both hits are chest-to-chest, both players were looking at the puck. To me, it was just a matter of where the hit occurred.
X. Benedict Posted April 20, 2011 Report Posted April 20, 2011 Let me qualify that. I contest it was a blind side. His body was turned towards the glass, and his head never turned. He was looking down and to the right the entire time. So in my estimation, he was blind to the hit. A lateral/blindside hit doesn't refer to the position of the head, it refers to the shoulders. Niel on Drury lateral.... Torres on Seabrook...square.... Maybe not the best examples ...but that's how I see it.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.