Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf
mikey287 wrote:That's fine, MR. My point still remains. This is a borderline "follow through" hit that causes damage. I don't disagree with your point. Look at the Gryba on Eller hit, a case where "follow through" causes the damage as well (plus Kyle Turris' stick). So, let's say for the sake of argument that we're penalizing "incidental contact"...so what do we do with instances like the Dustin Brown attempt there, there was a boarding midway through the Washington/New York series that probably would have been looked at if it caused injury, etc.
I mean, let's even go extreme. Marty McSorley swings at Donald Brashear's head and misses him. What do we do with that?
mikey287 wrote:That's fine, MR. My point still remains. This is a borderline "follow through" hit that causes damage. I don't disagree with your point. Look at the Gryba on Eller hit, a case where "follow through" causes the damage as well (plus Kyle Turris' stick). So, let's say for the sake of argument that we're penalizing "incidental contact"...so what do we do with instances like the Dustin Brown attempt there, there was a boarding midway through the Washington/New York series that probably would have been looked at if it caused injury, etc.
I mean, let's even go extreme. Marty McSorley swings at Donald Brashear's head and misses him. What do we do with that?
pfim wrote:mikey287 wrote:That's fine, MR. My point still remains. This is a borderline "follow through" hit that causes damage. I don't disagree with your point. Look at the Gryba on Eller hit, a case where "follow through" causes the damage as well (plus Kyle Turris' stick). So, let's say for the sake of argument that we're penalizing "incidental contact"...so what do we do with instances like the Dustin Brown attempt there, there was a boarding midway through the Washington/New York series that probably would have been looked at if it caused injury, etc.
I mean, let's even go extreme. Marty McSorley swings at Donald Brashear's head and misses him. What do we do with that?
I don't see how the two issues are related. One, a foul is committed, we can observe it. There are standards in place and whether or not a suspension is levied is based on a review of the video footage.
The second is intent. While intent may sometimes be obvious to infer, it's still an inference and not observed. I don't really have a problem suspending on intent, but the standards must be much higher.
Idoit40fans wrote:Wut? I was just commenting on the second part of your post where you brought up intent. The way the changes are trending, I think thats what is going to happen.
pfim wrote:Idoit40fans wrote:Wut? I was just commenting on the second part of your post where you brought up intent. The way the changes are trending, I think thats what is going to happen.
I was responding to Mikey. I apologize for not quoting him.
Rylan wrote:http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=123678
pfim wrote:
The second is intent. While intent may sometimes be obvious to infer, it's still an inference and not observed. I don't really have a problem suspending on intent, but the standards must be much higher.
shmenguin wrote:Rylan wrote:http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=123678
this video refutes your stance from earlier. i assume you think that these hits were comparable to torres', but that's incorrect.
Rylan wrote:For the record, the video I posted is what the NHL deems to be legal hits. Seems to me there is a lot of grey area.
Rylan wrote:shmenguin wrote:Rylan wrote:http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=123678
this video refutes your stance from earlier. i assume you think that these hits were comparable to torres', but that's incorrect.
My stance is not whether or not the hit was clean. I think the hit was borderline. My stance was the suspension is ridiculous. That was not a hit worth 3-6 games, variable suspensions are stupid, and suspending names, not plays is absolutely deplorable.
I posted the video so people could see what is considered clean by the NHL.
Rylan wrote:shmenguin wrote:Rylan wrote:http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=123678
this video refutes your stance from earlier. i assume you think that these hits were comparable to torres', but that's incorrect.
My stance is not whether or not the hit was clean. I think the hit was borderline. My stance was the suspension is ridiculous. That was not a hit worth 3-6 games, variable suspensions are stupid, and suspending names, not plays is absolutely deplorable.
I posted the video so people could see what is considered clean by the NHL.
pfim wrote:Rylan wrote:shmenguin wrote:Rylan wrote:http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=123678
this video refutes your stance from earlier. i assume you think that these hits were comparable to torres', but that's incorrect.
My stance is not whether or not the hit was clean. I think the hit was borderline. My stance was the suspension is ridiculous. That was not a hit worth 3-6 games, variable suspensions are stupid, and suspending names, not plays is absolutely deplorable.
I posted the video so people could see what is considered clean by the NHL.
I think the variable suspension is dumb.
I'm not sure I get the bolded part. Certainly, the length of the suspension should be altered if a player continues to recklessly check others. No? Sure, he was clean for the regular season, but 39 games between suspensions isn't a whole lot.
JoseCuervo wrote:If conacher launches himself at someone's head and hits their chest, should he be suspended?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests