Irishjim Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 No doubt about it,Eric Nystrom‘s hit onKris Letangis likely starting a ton of heated debatesin Dallas, Pittsburgh and plenty of other hockey circles.If you were looking for a passionate exchange of ideas following the game, you didn’t have to consult a trusty message board or your local tavern, though. NBC Sports Network analysts Jeremy Roenick and Mike Milbury weren’t shy about disagreeing on the subject, as you can see in the video below. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digityman Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 @Irishjim I think that Milbury is right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Me too @DigitymanHowever, JR is right about a hit to the chest causing your head to snap back. See Lindros, Eric. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B21 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 No doubt about it,Eric Nystrom‘s hit onKris Letangis likely starting a ton of heated debatesin Dallas, Pittsburgh and plenty of other hockey circles.If you were looking for a passionate exchange of ideas following the game, you didn’t have to consult a trusty message board or your local tavern, though. NBC Sports Network analysts Jeremy Roenick and Mike Milbury weren’t shy about disagreeing on the subject, as you can see in the video below. Watching that debate was almost surreal...Milbury arguing FOR a suspension and Roenick arguing AGAINST. I felt dirty agreeing with Milbury on anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irishjim Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 the thing is i watched the reply several times and i cannot see a hit to the head, upper right shoulder is where he gets hit. so i take JR's Side. just my opinion and we all know about opinions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hf101 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 As I watch the debate, the point Joney makes about Nystrom not going for the puck is probably the easiest solution moving forward, imo, to define the play as, interference, intentional, and suspensionable. Letang didn't have the puck thus it isn't a check, or a headshot during a check. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanflyer Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 @hf101 and others- I am with Roenick on this, but will add to change the elbow and shoulder pads to the pre-iraq armor style (you know, cloth and foam only- no bullet proof 1/3 " thick plastic). People will say "what about those 100 mph" shots and I say there are not that many guys cranking it like that and if a guy has a shot like that and you are afraid of it, get out of the way. Letang was irresponsible there. He forgot rule 101- always protect yourself. What if while he flips it up the wall, he chooses to follow the wall instead of trying to jump around and Nystrom just pastes him into the boards? What would people say then- especially as nystrom was bent over and extended. It was a careless hockey play by letang in my mind. Nystrom coming in on the forecheck his job is to retrieve the puck and / or eliminate the player. Maybe he could have got the puck, maybe he pursues it and misses and letang springs with and odd man rush going the other way. People say that letang did not have the puck, but that is completely unfair- he had JUST released it and did not even have a chance to take a SINGLE step before Nystrom nailed him. To me, if you are Nystrom, you playing a percentage "can I get the puck, if not, I have to get the man". He choose the later and timed it perfectly. Take all this heavy armor body gear out of the game and you will see allot of these injuries decreased as the players will have more awareness and responsibility for themselves and more respect for each other and not feel they are impervious to injury because they are dressed like robo-cop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanflyer Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 @hf101 and others- I am with Roenick on this, but will add to change the elbow and shoulder pads to the pre-iraq armor style (you know, cloth and foam only- no bullet proof 1/3 " thick plastic). People will say "what about those 100 mph" shots and I say there are not that many guys cranking it like that and if a guy has a shot like that and you are afraid of it, get out of the way. Letang was irresponsible there. He forgot rule 101- always protect yourself. What if while he flips it up the wall, he chooses to follow the wall instead of trying to jump around and Nystrom just pastes him into the boards? What would people say then- especially as letang was bent over and extended. It was a careless hockey play by letang in my mind. Nystrom coming in on the forecheck his job is to retrieve the puck and / or eliminate the player. Maybe he could have got the puck, maybe he pursues it and misses and letang springs with and odd man rush going the other way. People say that letang did not have the puck, but that is completely unfair- he had JUST released it and did not even have a chance to take a SINGLE step before Nystrom nailed him. To me, if you are Nystrom, you playing a percentage "can I get the puck, if not, I have to get the man". He choose the later and timed it perfectly. Take all this heavy armor body gear out of the game and you will see allot of these injuries decreased as the players will have more awareness and responsibility for themselves and more respect for each other and not feel they are impervious to injury because they are dressed like robo-cop. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hf101 Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 @VanflyerReducing the plastic enforcement in the shoulders and elbow pads will make a difference I agree. I will agree that Letang was in vulnerable position and yet eliminating the player is also interference since Letang was without the puck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanflyer Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 @hf101" yet eliminating the player is also interference since Letang was without the puck."It was milliseconds after he had just chipped the puck up the wall. That is not interference in my book at all as he was finishing a hockey play on a player who had just had the puck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blocker Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 (edited) That is not interference in my book at all as he was finishing a hockey play on a player who had just had the puck.I'm too lazy to check the exact wording of the rules on interference, but I always thought you could check the player with the puck or the last guy who had it.I got off my butt and checked. FWIW;"Possession of the Puck: The last player to touch the puck, other than the goalkeeper, shall be considered the player in possession. The player deemed in possession of the puck may be checked legally, provided the check is rendered immediately following his loss of possession." Edited March 3, 2012 by blocker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hf101 Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 @VanflyerAfter re-watching, Letang did touch the puck, I stand corrected on the interference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.