SwampD Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 25 secs in. Not much different hit other than where it was. http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?hlg=20102011,2,1005&navid=sb:highlights I really can't believe all the crying about Chara's hit. Again, hockey is a violent sport.
billsrcursed Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 25 secs in. Not much different hit other than where it was. http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?hlg=20102011,2,1005&navid=sb:highlights I really can't believe all the crying about Chara's hit. Again, hockey is a violent sport. I'm starting to get the feeling that it has nothing to do with the hit. I think many here just don't like him, and are assuming his intent was to drive him into the "turnbuckle". I mean that's what it really boils down to, do you think he did it intentionally or do you think it was a late hit that ended horribly? I could be wrong.
SabresMojo Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 Think again: Under 46.22 Chara should have been suspended. - A player who is deemed to be the instigator of an altercation in the final five (5) minutes of regulation time or at anytime in overtime (see 46.12) hall be suspended for one game, pending a review of the incident. When the one-game suspension is imposed, the Coach shall be fined $10,000 – a fine that will double for each subsequent incident. That is 46.22 ^^ If anyone here thinks that Chara isnt a cheap SoB or at least dirty, look at him pop Gaustad in that video... Ok, yeah Gaustad slapped at his ankles...that isnt clean or sportsmanlike, but what does giving the other guy (Gaustad) a cheap shot to the face? He didnt get suspended and the coach didnt get fined...
SabresMojo Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 I think many here just don't like him, and are assuming his intent was to drive him into the "turnbuckle". I mean that's what it really boils down to, do you think he did it intentionally or do you think it was a late hit that ended horribly? I could be wrong. Thats when bias comes in w/ the people not liking him and the assuming. I love his play on the ice, great defencemen, no doubt. But the dirty stuff he does away from the puck that causes harm or trouble is just dumb and wrong. He is a big bully in that aspect... The statement made by Mike Murphy is complete BS...anytime something controversial happens in sport, someone has to make a statement. With the statement given, I can see what he means by no leaping, head hunting; its logical for not giving any discipline...but the line stating that he has a clean record is just crap. If someone has a clean record and they screw up, they have no more clean record. Chara has done numerous acts which coulda been fined, but when it becomes a trend what do people expect? Unless someone in the NHL realizes that this should have required discipline of some sort, this sort of favoritism will continue. And why is there just a heat in this thread? If person A thinks one thing and person B thinks another; why call them names or insult them? That doesn't get anything accomplished and makes a thread hostile and it goes downhill to the point of it being closed by a Mod. (just a thought I should put out there) One thing I hope for in tomorrows game in Boston... I just pray that Buffalo doesnt do something to take out Chara because of this and that they hand it to Boston by giving them a 'L' in the standings.
JJFIVEOH Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 I'm starting to get the feeling that it has nothing to do with the hit. I think many here just don't like him, and are assuming his intent was to drive him into the "turnbuckle". I mean that's what it really boils down to, do you think he did it intentionally or do you think it was a late hit that ended horribly? I could be wrong. I think he did it intentionally. If he had stuck with his momentum it would have been a solid hip check into the boards and that's it. At the last second he changed his direction and went for the upper body. I agree, it is a violent sport and I would have a lot easier time accepting what he does if: 1) The league was more consistent on what it CLAIMS to enforce 2) The league didn't frown more upon the players that police themselves instead of the culprits. In most cases when a player throws a questionable hit, the enforcers who come to his aid and take it upon themselves to beat him will get harsher penalties. If players were allowed to retaliate on the spot by laying the smackdown on somebody like Chara this would be a much different league. Not saying fights should get off scott-free, or even third-men in, but if players didn't have to worry about the league coming down hard on retaliation they could take care of business on the ice and get it over with. I would bet everybody would have an entirely different view of the situation if Moen, Subban or Gill (better yet a combination of the three) had the opportunity to gang up on Chara and beat him senseless. But, he got spared by getting a game miscounduct. Sometimes the best way to alleviate the blatant attempts to injure is to alleviate the rules. If anybody follows NASCAR, they went to a 'have at it' approach the last couple of years. Has there been any more intentional wrecks? No. Because when there is one, NASCAR now turns their head when there is retaliation. That racer will remember and get him back at their worst possible time. And when he does, he generally won't get messed with by the same guy again.
SabresMojo Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 I think he did it intentionally. If he had stuck with his momentum it would have been a solid hip check into the boards and that's it. At the last second he changed his direction and went for the upper body. I agree, it is a violent sport and I would have a lot easier time accepting what he does if... This goes along with what I have been thinking when people say "If this was in a different part of the rink, it would have been a good check". IDK what they think when they say that (not being insulting), but think about this...what if it was in a fully boarded part (behind the net, etc), what happens to his head? Does the head get nailed and he still is out? Then we get the head-hunting talk...speculating about it being in a different part because of so many variables...
apushms Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 As Mario said, the NHL is a garage league. Even if Chara didn't intent to hit Patch that way, it happened. You might not intentionally speed, but try telling a cop that when he pulls you over. You have to be aware of where you are on the ice and if you make a play that hurts someone badly there have to be consequences. It's time to make Chara act like a big boy NHL, and by the way, the league office could use some maturity, too.
deluca67 Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 25 secs in. Not much different hit other than where it was. http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?hlg=20102011,2,1005&navid=sb:highlights I really can't believe all the crying about Chara's hit. Again, hockey is a violent sport. There seems to be a growing number of posters that wish the NHL would follow the Sabres lead and take hitting out of the sport.
Weave Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 "I believe he was trying to guide my head into the turnbuckle. We all know where the turnbuckle is. It wasn't a head shot like a lot of head shots we see but I do feel he targeted my head into the turnbuckle." I think this sums it up for me. "We all know where the turnbuckle is".
Weave Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 There seems to be a growing number of posters that wish the NHL would follow the Sabres lead and take hitting out of the sport. I love the hitting. It is the intent to injure that I want removed.
Eleven Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 I'm starting to get the feeling that it has nothing to do with the hit. I think many here just don't like him, and are assuming his intent was to drive him into the "turnbuckle". I mean that's what it really boils down to, do you think he did it intentionally or do you think it was a late hit that ended horribly? I could be wrong. I don't think he intended to drive him into what everyone now is calling the turnbuckle. Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I don't think professional athletes act that way. I do think he intended to dish out some punishment with an illegal hit that was interference and/or boarding. That's what Chara does, game after game after game. There's a reason why certain hits are illegal: they are dangerous. When that illegal, dangerous hit results in an injury, the player should be suspended.
Eleven Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 25 secs in. Not much different hit other than where it was. http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?hlg=20102011,2,1005&navid=sb:highlights I really can't believe all the crying about Chara's hit. Again, hockey is a violent sport. One big difference is that Kane had the puck. Another is that the Tampa guy didn't some across the ice to hit him; he was in on the play. So the Kane hit wasn't illegal. It's not a comparable situation.
tom webster Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 - A player who is deemed to be the instigator of an altercation in the final five (5) minutes of regulation time or at anytime in overtime (see 46.12) hall be suspended for one game, pending a review of the incident. When the one-game suspension is imposed, the Coach shall be fined $10,000 – a fine that will double for each subsequent incident. That is 46.22 ^^ If anyone here thinks that Chara isnt a cheap SoB or at least dirty, look at him pop Gaustad in that video... Ok, yeah Gaustad slapped at his ankles...that isnt clean or sportsmanlike, but what does giving the other guy (Gaustad) a cheap shot to the face?He didnt get suspended and the coach didnt get fined... Do you know what the word "instigates" means? Gaustad clearly instigated the altercation and admitted as much afterward. He was trying to send a message. In fact the spirit of the rule is designed to stop that kind of stuff so if anything, Gaustad should have been suspended.
tom webster Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 Think again: Under 46.22 Chara should have been suspended. Again I ask, does anyone know what the word instigate means or what the intent of the rule was?
Buffalo Wings Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 If I were Pacioretti, I'd file assault charges. He quite literally could have been killed. Again, I disagree. Wasn't it a Vancouver lawyer/DA/whatever that tried to charge Marty McSorley with assault when he took his stick to Donald Brashear's face? I hate that - it's on the ice, in the heat of the moment of the sport. I doubt if McSorley saw Brashear on the street that he'd do the same thing.
Buffalo Wings Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 I think this sums it up for me. "We all know where the turnbuckle is". Exactly. Even if Chara didn't want to hurt him that bad, he knows the potential.
Tyrannustyrannus Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 the NESN announcers are a bunch of clowns. "Yah cahd prahhbaahbly ahhgya both sides of the ahhgyament heah" Looking forward to that gahbage tahnight. They make me beg for a Versus broadcast. I remember when they thought Gaustad should have been called for a penalty right before the Sabres scored and they refused to announce the score correctly for the rest of the game. Buffalo won by a goal and they tried to say it was a tie game still.
thesportsbuff Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 I'm honestly shocked that Chara didn't get a suspension. I think it's a joke. I don't buy that he 'didn't know' the partition was there or whatever -- he was looking RIGHT at it, it was at directly his 12 o clock. Unless he has some tunnel vision, he saw it, he saw the opportunity to hit the guy into it and he made sure to drive his head into it with his hand. I'm not saying he meant to hurt the guy, but based on the fact it was illegal (interference) and that Max won't play hockey for who knows how long, there should have been a suspension handed down. You have to be responsible for what you do on the ice, just like a high stick or a trip. And as another poster pointed out above, all this mumbo jumbo about "Chara has a pretty clean history" -- yeah, clean history because the NHL decides that mandatory suspensions don't apply to Chara. He should have gotten at least three games in my opinion but I would have liked to seen five. Anyway I know this argument is going to rage on for days and there's really no right or wrong opinion, so if you take issue with my post I'm probably not gonna check back to defend it.
spndnchz Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I2pjf7Vp9Q&tracker=False
That Aud Smell Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 what everyone now is calling the turnbuckle. seriously. whatever happened to stanchion? that's what ted darling used to call it. when people say "turnbuckle," i immediately picture this:
thesportsbuff Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 seriously. whatever happened to stanchion? that's what ted darling used to call it. when people say "turnbuckle," i immediately picture this: same, i hate people calling it the turnbuckle. but i'd also never heard the word stanchion before yesterday. i always just referred to it as the partition.
SabresMojo Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 I love the hitting. It is the intent to injure that I want removed. Agreed. I think that some injuries will occur just because of the fall or how they were hit... If the hit was dirty or not was another thing...some hits are clean and its just unfortunate for the injury to occur I don't think he intended to drive him into what everyone now is calling the turnbuckle. Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I don't think professional athletes act that way. I do think he intended to dish out some punishment with an illegal hit that was interference and/or boarding. That's what Chara does, game after game after game. There's a reason why certain hits are illegal: they are dangerous. When that illegal, dangerous hit results in an injury, the player should be suspended. I wouldn't say its being optimistic, I'd say its more of being naive, and not believing that players do commit dirty acts. But when you have a clean record, despite the hard (sometimes dirty) hits and not get suspended, why would the NHL veer away from that? Do you know what the word "instigates" means? Gaustad clearly instigated the altercation and admitted as much afterward. He was trying to send a message. In fact the spirit of the rule is designed to stop that kind of stuff so if anything, Gaustad should have been suspended. I do, and Im not saying that Gaustad didnt instigate, but the fact that he didnt "challenge" him and just tried to punish him in the face. Im also not disagreeing that Paul should have been suspended, if its in the rules, then follow the rules and suspend him, but make it consistent with all offenders. You could also technically say that Chara was an instigator as well because he turns and tries to drop Gaustad, thus causing the big pileup. Either way, someone should have been suspended in that situation.
Guest Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 I'd love to answer your question, but I'm a complete F'n moron because I have a differing opinion than you on a person's intent, so what would be the point? You won't find many who will be willing to discuss things with you if you're going to name call and bash anyone with a differing opinion than yours. Good luck, though... I'm glad to see you admit your faults. And for the record.....I didn't call out anyone by name as the f'n moron, but nice to see you step up to the plate. That hit was intentional and malicious and when the player that took the hit comes right out and admits that....I tend to agree with him. 99% of the time players will say it was just hockey, but in this case Pacioretty calls a spade a spade, just like the video shows. Sorry if you disagree.
SabresMojo Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 http://www.montrealgazette.com/could+probed+police/4415669/story.html Interesting... Thoughts?
spndnchz Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 Air Canada gets into the mix "From a corporate social responsibility standpoint, it is becoming increasingly difficult to associate our brand with sports events which could lead to serious and irresponsible accidents; action must be taken by the NHL before we are encountered with a fatality. "Unless the NHL takes immediate action with serious suspension to the players in question to curtail these life-threatening injuries, Air Canada will withdraw its sponsorship of hockey." Hit 'em where it hurts, the pocketbook.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.