Brawndo Posted March 8, 2016 Report Posted March 8, 2016 Speaking of hometown discounts SportsCentre @SportsCentre 21s 22 seconds ago The @NHLBlackhawks have agreed to terms with forward Marcus Kruger on a three-year, $9.25M contract extension.
tom webster Posted March 8, 2016 Report Posted March 8, 2016 Speaking of hometown discounts SportsCentre @SportsCentre 21s 22 seconds ago The @NHLBlackhawks have agreed to terms with forward Marcus Kruger on a three-year, $9.25M contract extension. He's a solid number three center. Not sure he deserves much more.
Eleven Posted March 9, 2016 Report Posted March 9, 2016 He's a solid number three center. Not sure he deserves much more. I can see a 3C making 3.5 in this cap era. Not too long ago, what were the Sabs paying Hecht? To me, the interesting part is what does this mean for Shaw?
JJFIVEOH Posted March 9, 2016 Report Posted March 9, 2016 Why is that creepy? I thought it was funny. Foley just seems to enjoy that a little too much.
Stoner Posted March 9, 2016 Report Posted March 9, 2016 He's definitely riding piss-hole. Ya know, as much as I've googled around, I've never been able to figure out if Canadian buses really have pissholes.
Eleven Posted March 9, 2016 Report Posted March 9, 2016 Ya know, as much as I've googled around, I've never been able to figure out if Canadian buses really have pissholes. Google turned up some disturbing results when I searched.
Eleven Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 In paragraph 3, geniuses observe that fighting is more prevalent among teenagers than among young adults and adults. In the rest of the article, they mope about it. http://www.tsn.ca/fighting-on-the-agenda-at-chl-executive-meeting-1.450501?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link
CallawaySabres Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 What a freaking game in St Louis!!! Will we ever see this in Buffalo again?
WildCard Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 (edited) No surprise, but the Leafs get the WC on January 1st, 2017, for their 100th anniversary. They'll host the Red Wings. Jets will host Edmonton, and the Penguins will host the Flyers at Heinz field Edited March 10, 2016 by WildCard
Randall Flagg Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 No surprise, but the Leafs get the WC on January 1st, 2017, for their 100th anniversary. They'll host the Red Wings. Jets will host Edmonton, and the Penguins will host the Flyers at Heinz fieldThe WC is actually some other teams, this game is called the "Centennial Classic"
Huckleberry Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/goes-brown-flip-switch-become-contender/ 5 examples of teams doing well after tank jobs. But, we’re warned ominously whenever the topic comes up, there’s one big catch: the losing is the easy part. Anyone can do the teardown – it doesn’t take much vision to build a loser. But when it’s time to flip the switch and win again, that’s where it gets tricky. Sometimes, when it’s time to finally hit the gas, you find that the wheels won’t catch. that is why I want us to try and win every game there is.
Eleven Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/goes-brown-flip-switch-become-contender/ 5 examples of teams doing well after tank jobs. that is why I want us to try and win every game there is. Right there with you.
WildCard Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 (edited) Great article, Huck. And thanks for the clarification, FlaggHas anyone watched Caps' defenseman Dmitry Orlov this season? The dude has some filthy offensive instincts Edited March 10, 2016 by WildCard
Randall Flagg Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 Great article, Huck. And thanks for the clarification, Flagg Has anyone watched Caps' defenseman Dimitri Orloff this season? The dude has some filthy offensive instincts I only know the distinction because Toronto fans are whining about being victims again haha Yeah he's going to price himself right off that team.
WildCard Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 I only know the distinction because Toronto fans are whining about being victims again haha Yeah he's going to price himself right off that team. Too bad he's an RFA after next year. Was hoping he was this year
Huckleberry Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 (edited) http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/eye-on-hockey/25511016 Reaves got ejected after this hit on Erhoff, Now the article makes it look like this wasn't the right call. But to me if Erhoff doesn't see this coming and not pull his head back we would see another concussion. Edited March 10, 2016 by Huckleberry
MattPie Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/eye-on-hockey/25511016 Reaves got ejected after this hit on Erhoff, Now the article makes it look like this wasn't the right call. But to me if Erhoff doesn't see this coming and not pull his head back we would see another concussion. From the article: Reaves was already committed to the check, likely anticipating Ehrhoff to be reaching for the puck, and followed through. It was pretty clear, however, that Reaves had zero interest in the puck and was thinking hit the whole way. I'm always confused by this. There's "committed to the check" as in not being able to turn or stop, but watching the video somehow moving towards the player, crouching, and pushing the shoulder up into the player doesn't seem like "there's nothing I could do".
That Aud Smell Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 I consider myself an anti-head-shot fan. I use terms like "dinosaurs" when I hear stuff like "keep your head up." But that hit? That hit seems much more clean than dirty or punishable.
Stoner Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/goes-brown-flip-switch-become-contender/ 5 examples of teams doing well after tank jobs. that is why I want us to try and win every game there is. But the question is whether winning right now, when out of the playoffs, against backups, other teams that are out, teams that are disinterested means anything a'tall for the fall.
Stoner Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 I consider myself an anti-head-shot fan. I use terms like "dinosaurs" when I hear stuff like "keep your head up." But that hit? That hit seems much more clean than dirty or punishable. The only penalty there is interference. The degree would be the debate. I don't see how that's charging. But it was a semi-predatory hit that came within a few inches of being legally squeaky clean. Intent to injure? Not really, but there's a fine line between intent and a player knowing that result of an action like that very well could be injury. Interesting call. So are they saying the player lept into Ehrhoff? How does the NHL define charging? Ya know, what a guy charges! What da fook is distance traveled? The rule book is laughable. 42.1 Charging - A minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player who skates or jumps into, or charges an opponent in any manner. Charging shall mean the actions of a player who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner.
That Aud Smell Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 The only penalty there is interference. The degree would be the debate. I don't see how that's charging. But it was a semi-predatory hit that came within a few inches of being legally squeaky clean. Intent to injure? Not really, but there's a fine line between intent and a player knowing that result of an action like that very well could be injury. Interesting call. It is an interesting case study. To me, I see two players racing to the puck. One player (the Hoff) moves to get low, sees the Blues player, immediately thinks better of it, and tries to bail. The other player is barreling toward the puck, is prepared for full contact with an opponent, glances up at a player he can fairly assume will engage him, and launches his shoulder into that player's chest. In the course of all that, the Blues player does essentially abandon a play on the puck. So, yeah. Interference. But nothing more, in my book.
LTS Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 The only penalty there is interference. The degree would be the debate. I don't see how that's charging. But it was a semi-predatory hit that came within a few inches of being legally squeaky clean. Intent to injure? Not really, but there's a fine line between intent and a player knowing that result of an action like that very well could be injury. Interesting call. So are they saying the player lept into Ehrhoff? How does the NHL define charging? Ya know, what a guy charges! What da fook is distance traveled? The rule book is laughable. 42.1 Charging - A minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player who skates or jumps into, or charges an opponent in any manner. Charging shall mean the actions of a player who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner. Distance traveled is generally referred to as the amount of time the player had to accelerate or decelerate prior to the hit. So, a player who covers a good distance of ice and the continues to maintain speed by still power striding and then checks an opponent will get called. This is why the "glide path" is often discussed. At a certain distance prior to the hit the player is expected to stop driving their legs. If however, the player checking only has 5-10 feet and takes a few strides to make the hit it is generally not seen as charging because the player could not attain full speed. You can't make it a black and white rule as the referees don't have a measuring tape and a speedometer on each player. So, it's there and the players generally know it means that if you cross the width of the ice to hit someone without gliding into them you will get called for charging.
Stoner Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 Distance traveled is generally referred to as the amount of time the player had to accelerate or decelerate prior to the hit. So, a player who covers a good distance of ice and the continues to maintain speed by still power striding and then checks an opponent will get called. This is why the "glide path" is often discussed. At a certain distance prior to the hit the player is expected to stop driving their legs. If however, the player checking only has 5-10 feet and takes a few strides to make the hit it is generally not seen as charging because the player could not attain full speed. You can't make it a black and white rule as the referees don't have a measuring tape and a speedometer on each player. So, it's there and the players generally know it means that if you cross the width of the ice to hit someone without gliding into them you will get called for charging. I think this one was all about the ref thinking the player "left his feet" (weird expression). It was actually pretty close, but I don't think Reaves did. It often looks that way on first glance and of course that's all the ref gets. No replays. A legit leaping charge is pretty rare. Usually it's the energy of the impact that brings the player off the ice.
pi2000 Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 The only penalty there is interference. The degree would be the debate. I don't see how that's charging. But it was a semi-predatory hit that came within a few inches of being legally squeaky clean. Intent to injure? Not really, but there's a fine line between intent and a player knowing that result of an action like that very well could be injury. Interesting call. So are they saying the player lept into Ehrhoff? How does the NHL define charging? Ya know, what a guy charges! What da fook is distance traveled? The rule book is laughable. 42.1 Charging - A minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player who skates or jumps into, or charges an opponent in any manner. Charging shall mean the actions of a player who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner. Yeah interference shoulda been the only call. Ehrhoff needs to protect himself there... there's a proper way to take a hit, and that's not it. Don't penalize Reaves for that, it's not like Ehrhoff had his back turned and was defenseless on the blindside.
SwampD Posted March 10, 2016 Report Posted March 10, 2016 It is an interesting case study. To me, I see two players racing to the puck. One player (the Hoff) moves to get low, sees the Blues player, immediately thinks better of it, and tries to bail. The other player is barreling toward the puck, is prepared for full contact with an opponent, glances up at a player he can fairly assume will engage him, and launches his shoulder into that player's chest. In the course of all that, the Blues player does essentially abandon a play on the puck. So, yeah. Interference. But nothing more, in my book. And didn't we learn from a Raffi Tores hit a couple of seasons ago that that is an "area where a player should expect to get hit"?
Recommended Posts