Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf

Pavel Bure wrote:I wonder if people argued like this when the forward pass was introduced to hockey. It seems that it's not so much about the game could be made safer as "change is bad"

Pavel Bure wrote:Yes there was a time you couldn't pass forward to advance the puck

bhaw wrote:Pavel Bure wrote:Yes there was a time you couldn't pass forward to advance the puck
I didn't know that.



bhaw wrote:Goalies used to have to serve their own penalties. Awesome.
Of note... the discipline system hasn't changed in 90 years, hahaha.


Rylan wrote:bhaw wrote:Pavel Bure wrote:Yes there was a time you couldn't pass forward to advance the puck
I didn't know that.
Yea it was illegal for the longest time. You could only advance the puck through stickhandling and drop passes. The game was also more linear than it is today.


bhaw wrote:Pavel Bure wrote:I wonder if people argued like this when the forward pass was introduced to hockey. It seems that it's not so much about the game could be made safer as "change is bad"
But I do think it is this exactly. The new NHL was going to be ballet on ice. The trapazoid was going to make Brodeur useless and be a huge hindrance to goal tenders (have you seen a trapazoid penalty in the last 2 years? I can't recall one). The instigator rule would destroy the game (it just destroyed the careers of the guys who's sole purpose was fighting). etc etc. You can find instances where those changes hurt the game in isolated instances but none of us here hate hockey now.

ExPatriatePen wrote:bhaw wrote:Pavel Bure wrote:I wonder if people argued like this when the forward pass was introduced to hockey. It seems that it's not so much about the game could be made safer as "change is bad"
But I do think it is this exactly. The new NHL was going to be ballet on ice. The trapazoid was going to make Brodeur useless and be a huge hindrance to goal tenders (have you seen a trapazoid penalty in the last 2 years? I can't recall one). The instigator rule would destroy the game (it just destroyed the careers of the guys who's sole purpose was fighting). etc etc. You can find instances where those changes hurt the game in isolated instances but none of us here hate hockey now.
Just playing a bit of Devils advocate here, but...
I don't think that's it's totally a coincidence that our current problems with head injuries came after the instigator rules were put in place.
Just say'n.

penmyst wrote:A key sticking point in this ridiculous head-hunting is how many players lead with their shoulders high leaning into guys upper torso and head areas.
Watch most hits by Orpik. He doesn't do that. He is usually firmly planted, balanced on his legs, and delivering the hit with his hips leading the way.
Watch these head-hunters. If they don't make contact, they'll fall flat on their faces they are so leaned forward with the shoulder out looking for a target.
When punks like Ovechkin and Richards do it, people get up in arms. But it's become SOP around the league. I've explained why before, but to give the short version: it's a lower risk/ high reward type of hit to make compared to keeping your lowerbody balanced and delivering power from the hips. It can have explosive results, with almost zero physical blowback.
The fact that it's super dangerous isn't an issue, since the league won't do anything to stop it. So players keep pushing the line. And why not? Worst you can see for a blatant elbow assault on a head (such as Keith) is 5 games. Worst. Most likely is less than 2, if any at all. It never brings a 5 minute major. So if you can make it appear less blatant than Keith's assault, you are quite likely to get away with it. Maybe a 2 minute penalty, but the guy you just incapacitated might be gone for the game. Win.
I'll say again: It doesn't have to be this way. Witness: Matt Cooke.



brwi wrote:Leading with your hip is also not in any way a "low risk, high reward hit" for that matter.
Streaks House wrote:Don't know if this was brought up in the thread yet, but on Hot Stove on HNIC last night, Eric Francis pretty much says that Shanny WOULD dish out longer suspensions, but there is significant pressure from a group of NHL GMs to not do such.


columbia wrote:Sedin has a concussion.

bhaw wrote:columbia wrote:Sedin has a concussion.
Of course he does. In the end, 5 games for messing up a rival's best player indefinitely? Chicago should be throwing a party for Keith.


Streaks House wrote:Don't know if this was brought up in the thread yet, but on Hot Stove on HNIC last night, Eric Francis pretty much says that Shanny WOULD dish out longer suspensions, but there is significant pressure from a group of NHL GMs to not do such.



bhaw wrote:Yeah, that needs to be more than a game. Super blatant. But hey... it happened to Florida, so who cares? Right?




Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest