-
I dont remember there names but they were allot of fun.... -
Re: Another day another dangerous hit....
I follow college hockey, this happened on Sunday. Ask North Dakota fans and that hit is perfectly clean - reason #127 to hate UND and their fans. They are nothing but a bunch of thugs. (Here is an example of their awesome logic at its finest: Click on the comments below the pictures and video. http://www.areavoices.com/undhockey/?blog=73641) There has been a history between North Dakota and Minnesota of chippy play recently - it's a pretty intense rivalry. They even had a brawl during the post-game handshake a few years back.
I'm just glad because the guy who is suspended is a key player and isn't playing against Minnesota-Duluth on Thursday in the WCHA tournament. -
Re: Another day another dangerous hit....
That was a brutal charge. Didn't even look at the puck.
On another note, I"m going to the CCHA championships this Friday with the wife and kids. Should be fun. Hopefully UofM is in it.Comment
-
Re: Another day another dangerous hit....
Ugly.
His feet where nowhere near the ice.Comment
-
Re: Another day another dangerous hit....
That is a clear charge.I'm a finn so don't be surprised if I spell words wrong.Comment
-
Re: Another day another dangerous hit....
I love it, that's hockey.Comment
-
My Teams:
NCAA FB-Oregon Ducks
NCAA BB-Gonzaga Bulldogs
NBA-Portland Trail Blazers
NFL-Carolina Panthers
MLB-San Francisco Giants
NHL-Los Angeles Kings
Won't change this signature until Oregon wins a national championship (started 3/10/10)
Comment
-
Re: Another day another dangerous hit....
I'm not sure you'd come close to calling that an attempt to injure. Yes it was a charge on the basis that both feet left the ice but there are far, far worse things to do when making hits that are much more dangerous for the player being hit that what was seen in this video.Comment
-
Re: Another day another dangerous hit....
Don Cherry is a senile whack job whose act became tired long, long ago.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tcerBrY816c&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tcerBrY816c&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>Comment
-
Re: Another day another dangerous hit....
Another day, again, another dangerous hit:
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dtSx2z_CPKQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dtSx2z_CPKQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
James Wisniewski launches himself into the air, forearm first, into Seabrooks head.
I hope he gets the gate for the rest of the season.
I know that Seabrook hit Perry moments before and it looked bad, but Perry turned at the last second and Seabrook hit him shoulder on shoulder.
What Wisniewski did is dangerous and should be reprimanded to the highest extent of the rules.
P.S. Listen to the homerific comments by the Ducks announcers.
First they say that Seabrook's hit was dirty and to the head. No it wasn't. First, Seabrook glided into Perry and hit him shoulder on shoulder. Secondly, Perry turned at the last minute.
And then to say Seabrook is 'selling it' after getting drilled by a hit that started 50 feet away and ended with a flying forearm? Is this guy serious?Last edited by Money99; 03-18-2010, 07:48 AM.Comment
-
Re: Another day another dangerous hit....
NHL is turning back to 70s and 80s, if this keeps up.I'm a finn so don't be surprised if I spell words wrong.Comment
-
Re: Another day another dangerous hit....
I JUST saw that on Youtube after reading Bob McKenzie's article on it. He considers this the Grand Slam of Illegal Hits. Here's the article:
Gotta agree with Bob here. Yes, Seabrook's hit on Perry might've been a bit questionable but if you're going to avenge him for that don't go so far over the line to take Seabrook out like that! I'm not one of those that likes the whole mano e mano "drop the gloves to seek revenge" type but a fight would've sufficed or a good clean bodycheck would've been fine as well.It never ceases to amaze me how one play can be seen so differently by so many people, but so it goes in the ongoing debate over questionable hits in the NHL.
The latest example, of course, is Anaheim's James Wisniewski's hit on Chicago's Brent Seabrook, that left the Blackhawk defenceman crumpled and semiconscious on the ice.
When all is said and done, all anyone can really go by is what they see and feel and here's my take on that hit.
As near as I can tell, the hit occurred solely for one purpose – to avenge Seabrook's questionable/borderline hit of Duck player Corey Perry earlier on the same shift. I suppose that goes to intent, which isn't necessarily such a bad thing if the intent was to deliver a hard check that is somewhat within the bounds of the rules or even to drop the gloves to fight, because whether anyone likes it or not, fighting is part of hockey. And so is settling a score. Fair enough.
But Wisniewski's hit was anything but close to legal.
As soon as I saw it, it struck me as the Grand Slam of illegal hits.
It was most certainly charging as Wisniewski wound up from a great distance to come in at top speed to hit Seabrook. That Wisniewski also left his feet is the exclamation point on the charging charge. I don't recall a defenceman being that aggressive on the forecheck in quite some time.
It was also interference, insofar as Seabrook did not have possession of the puck and wasn't the last one to touch it. In fact, I think you can make the case that the puck was not a factor whatsoever in Wisniewski's decision-making process.
I would also argue it was boarding, in the sense of an ultra-violent hit into the boards. In today's game, we have more or less accepted that players get driven into the boards quite forcefully on a regular basis, but if you read the penalty for boarding, I think it fits in this case.
I am prepared to give Wisniewski the benefit of the doubt that it was not elbowing. It looked to me like the point of contact was the shoulder although the elbow did come up late in the hit.
Charging? Check. Interference? Check. Boarding? Check. Throw in the predatory aspect of the hit, the seeming malice and forethought to avenge an earlier play and I would say Wisniewski hit this one out of the park.
It had a vaguely Downie-esque feel to it (see Steve Downie's charging and high hit on Dean McAmmond).
My first thought was that with so many illegal elements to it, it would make sense for the NHL have to an in-person disciplinary hearing and a suspension of five or more games. A day after the fact, I don't feel any differently.
As is the current tradition in the NHL, that will elicit two reactions. One faction will say that's not nearly enough. The other will say it's just a hockey hit, grow a set and let the boys play.
Where the NHL comes down on this one is anyone's guess.
This chronic debate over whether a player should be suspended for a hit, or how long he should be suspended, has become rather tiresome for all, I'm sure.
There's some great hockey being played and we always seem to end up talking about these questionable hits.
And therein lies the problem of today's game. The aberrant or really violent behavior now is almost exclusively played out as part of body contact, which as everyone knows is an intrinsic part of the game.
In the old days, probably pre-new millennium and certainly in the 1970s and 1980s, the over the top stuff was pretty damn easy to identify. Crosschecks to the head, major league slashes or stick swinging, sucker punches…all of that stuff was so far outside the bounds of the game that suspensions were a piece of cake. It was all so obvious.
Now, it's rare for the stick to be used for anything but to score a goal and whatever havoc and violence someone is going to unleash is almost always carried out in the guise of body contact.
That doesn't minimize the risk factor, the injuries or the amount of malice in the game. It just makes it that much more difficult to identify.
Now, it's hard to tell who's wearing the black hat. And the cacophony of debate on each hit and whether it's good or bad or somewhere in between is deafening and endless. So all you can really do is go with what you see and what you feel and for me, the Wisniewski hit on Seabrook was a bad one.
Wisniewski went so over the line as to be an easy decision by Colin Campbell to throw the book at him and if he doesn't get at least 10 games then there's something VERY wrong about the way the NHL metes out punishment.Member of the Official OS Bills Backers Club
"Baseball is the most important thing that doesn't matter at all" - Robert B. ParkerComment
Comment