bunomatic Posted April 20, 2011 Report Posted April 20, 2011 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. This 'new' hitting zone as they've decided to call it is another of the leagues memos that mysteriously shows up when the league finds themselves in a pickle. Seabrooke and a few other hawks as well as a good number of Canucks were asked today by the guys on am 1040 out of Vancouver if they had ever heard of a 'hitting' zone or if they had seen a memo and to a man they all replied that they had never heard of it. It reminds me of the 'memo' that mysteriously showed up after 'no goal' about the foot in crease rule. This league continues to make a mockery out of the sport and themselves.
Braedon Posted April 20, 2011 Report Posted April 20, 2011 A lateral/blindside hit doesn't refer to the position of the head, it refers to the shoulders. I can see your point, but your shoulders dont see the puck. Complete semantics here, 'blind side' means you dont see it. Again, I see what you're saying. The problem is there's so many working parts here: position of the head, position of the torso, angle of pursuit, speed of the hit, the point of contact........and then what the ref, NHL, and we all perceive to be the intent.
X. Benedict Posted April 20, 2011 Report Posted April 20, 2011 I can see your point, but your shoulders dont see the puck. Complete semantics here, 'blind side' means you dont see it. Again, I see what you're saying. The problem is there's so many working parts here: position of the head, position of the torso, angle of pursuit, speed of the hit, the point of contact........and then what the ref, NHL, and we all perceive to be the intent. I guess I could be reading into it, but my reading of the rule has nothing to do with head position or vision - "blind side" is synonym for "lateral."
Weave Posted April 20, 2011 Report Posted April 20, 2011 I guess I could be reading into it, but my reading of the rule has nothing to do with head position or vision - "blind side" is synonym for "lateral." That is my take on it as well.
Iron Crotch Posted April 20, 2011 Report Posted April 20, 2011 Luongo pulled in Chicago. End of the game has really gotten ugly... 50+ minutes of penalties by Vancouver and counting. Nothing really awful, just a lot of cheap stuff that the refs are doing a good job of containing before it gets out of control.
X. Benedict Posted April 20, 2011 Report Posted April 20, 2011 End of the game has really gotten ugly... 50+ minutes of penalties by Vancouver and counting. Nothing really awful, just a lot of cheap stuff that the refs are doing a good job of containing before it gets out of control. It was getting silly...I stopped watching.
Eleven Posted April 20, 2011 Report Posted April 20, 2011 End of the game has really gotten ugly... 50+ minutes of penalties by Vancouver and counting. Nothing really awful, just a lot of cheap stuff that the refs are doing a good job of containing before it gets out of control. Bunch of stupid stuff--and I stopped watching like XB did. The game is out of hand, anyway. (And the series pretty much is, too. Maybe when the westerners had that 2-3-2 format, it could have been something, but I see a Vancouver win at home next game.)
OverPowerYou Posted April 20, 2011 Report Posted April 20, 2011 Watching San Jose vs. LA and the Kings right now and I really like LA's dark jerseys. I'm kinda rooting for them too since we relate to them in a small way - they are ravaged with injuries. Their injuries are the equivalent of having both Roy and Stafford injured. Kings up 2-0 early and now on the PP, 4 minutes.
darksabre Posted April 20, 2011 Report Posted April 20, 2011 Watching San Jose vs. LA and the Kings right now and I really like LA's dark jerseys. I'm kinda rooting for them too since we relate to them in a small way - they are ravaged with injuries. Their injuries are the equivalent of having both Roy and Stafford injured. Kings up 2-0 early and now on the PP, 4 minutes. The Kings are my adopted Western Conference team. I've become a big Johnny Quick fan over the last few years so I've been pulling for the Kings along with it. Good game so far. I'd love to see them upset the Sharks. Also, Handzus is one ugly MFer, but man is he good.
OverPowerYou Posted April 20, 2011 Report Posted April 20, 2011 The Sharks have made the comeback of the year. Down 4-0 to the Kings they have scored 5 times in the 2nd to tie the game at 5. Almost halfway through the 3rd now. This game reminds me of game 3 of SanJose-Calgary series in 2008 Btw there was only 2 games on tonight. By the end of the night, over 20 goals will have been scored in the 2 games combined. Gotta love playoff hockey.
spndnchz Posted April 20, 2011 Author Report Posted April 20, 2011 http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?hlg=20102011,3,163 Wow.
carpandean Posted April 20, 2011 Report Posted April 20, 2011 I went to bed at the end of regulation in the Sharks-Kings game, so I had to record it. It's not Flyers-Bruins from last year, but definitely a huge collapse by the Kings. What I thought was really amazing is that 3 of the 4 such comebacks (down 4 goals) have been won in OT, but Montreal in 1971 (I think it was) won their game 7-5 in regulation. Ouch. Edit: also of note is that they played the "history will be made" commercial where LA came back from down 5-0 to Edmonton to win in OT a couple of times during and after the game.
LabattBlue Posted April 20, 2011 Report Posted April 20, 2011 I went to bed at the end of regulation in the Sharks-Kings game, so I had to record it. It's not Flyers-Bruins from last year, but definitely a huge collapse by the Kings. What I thought was really amazing is that 3 of the 4 such comebacks (down 4 goals) have been won in OT, but Montreal in 1971 (I think it was) won their game 7-5 in regulation. Ouch. Edit: also of note is that they played the "history will be made" commercial where LA came back from down 5-0 to Edmonton to win in OT a couple of times during and after the game. I fell asleep at the beginning of the 3rd period and woke up to the announcers call of the GWG. The 2nd period was one of the wildest I've ever seen.
nobody Posted April 20, 2011 Report Posted April 20, 2011 That LA-SJ game was something! Of course I'm now paying for watching the entire game. :)
rickshaw Posted April 20, 2011 Report Posted April 20, 2011 Bunch of stupid stuff--and I stopped watching like XB did. The game is out of hand, anyway. (And the series pretty much is, too. Maybe when the westerners had that 2-3-2 format, it could have been something, but I see a Vancouver win at home next game.) I'm quite sure that if you asked the Canucks before the playoffs began, if they'd be happy being up 3-1 and heading home, I'm pretty certain they'd have been smiling and nodding in unison. I have to say that I am appalled and laughing at J Toews's remarks at the same time. He is a good Canadian kid, a very good hockey player, but his constant whining about the Torres' hit and the lack of respect he's showing the Canucks is lacking in professionalism if you ask me. Clearly both teams hate each other but have the respect. The Canucks have shown it by acknowledging the Hawks' are the champs, but the Hawks refuse to give the Cancuks any credit. And running up the score is fine and dandy but there are more games to play. Should be interesting Thursday. One thing I did find disturbing was when John Scott lined up against Torres with about 9 mins to go. He was clearly on the ice to pummel Torres (if he could catch him) and when the ref diffused the situation and sent them both off for 10 mins, the Canucks could have cared less, but yet the Hawks were livid. Especially Toews. They were yelling and screaming at the refs about it. They say they don't like the hit by Torres and call it cheap, but really, it was a good hit and the NHL agreed. Yet they were fine with Scott about to do his best WWE impression on Torres?? Reeks of double standard. I am all for good rivalries, but I don't like it when the respect line is crossed.
Weave Posted April 20, 2011 Report Posted April 20, 2011 One thing I did find disturbing was when John Scott lined up against Torres with about 9 mins to go. He was clearly on the ice to pummel Torres (if he could catch him) and when the ref diffused the situation and sent them both off for 10 mins, the Canucks could have cared less, but yet the Hawks were livid. Especially Toews. They were yelling and screaming at the refs about it. They say they don't like the hit by Torres and call it cheap, but really, it was a good hit and the NHL agreed. Yet they were fine with Scott about to do his best WWE impression on Torres?? Reeks of double standard. I am all for good rivalries, but I don't like it when the respect line is crossed. I can see why the Hawks would be mad there. Obviously they don't believe that justice was served for that Torres hit. So, they want to send a message to Torres that if the league is going to allow it, we won't, and we want to make sure you don't consider doing it again. So they send a guy out there to make sure the message is well delivered. And then the refs send him off for 10 minutes. So, if you look at it from Chicago's perspective, there was no justice on the ice and no justice from Toronto. I'm all for a return to teams dealing out their own justice once in awhile. If I was a Chicago fan that thought that Torres' hit was dirty I'd be pissed about not getting a chance to see justice meted out on the ice.
X. Benedict Posted April 20, 2011 Report Posted April 20, 2011 I can't remember the name of this actor, but he in the Old School movie. This has to be the shot of the year. :lol: http://mit.zenfs.com/206/2011/04/61019026.jpg
shrader Posted April 20, 2011 Report Posted April 20, 2011 I can't remember the name of this actor, but he in the Old School movie. This has to be the shot of the year. :lol: http://mit.zenfs.com/206/2011/04/61019026.jpg I saw that earlier today and assumed photoshop.
X. Benedict Posted April 20, 2011 Report Posted April 20, 2011 I saw that earlier today and assumed photoshop. Oh. I didn't know. I got a good laugh.
Eleven Posted April 20, 2011 Report Posted April 20, 2011 I saw that earlier today and assumed photoshop. Maybe, but maybe not; I think Vince Vaughn is a pretty big Blackhawks fan (he probably jumped on that wagon when everyone else did).
shrader Posted April 20, 2011 Report Posted April 20, 2011 Oh. I didn't know. I got a good laugh. I'm not saying it is photoshopped, but it was the feeling I got. If that's real, it's hilarious.
darksabre Posted April 20, 2011 Report Posted April 20, 2011 I can't remember the name of this actor, but he in the Old School movie. This has to be the shot of the year. :lol: http://mit.zenfs.com/206/2011/04/61019026.jpg Vince Vaughn. And it's definitely real. :clapping:
X. Benedict Posted April 20, 2011 Report Posted April 20, 2011 Vince Vaughn. And it's definitely real. :clapping: That's it. Vince Vaugh. Too funny.
Braedon Posted April 20, 2011 Report Posted April 20, 2011 I saw that earlier today and assumed photoshop. Yeah it's real, though in the pic his head looks way too big for his hands. Weird. Vaughn with Wife at Blackhawks Game
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.