Jump to content

Breaking News! Neal will have 2 seperate


Guest pensuck

Recommended Posts

I just noticed you mentioned "kronwall" in the post I responded to. No wonder I didn't understand your point. I was talking about Neal.

and i was giving an example of a "clean hit" that carried every bit as much danger of serious injury as neal's. responding to the idea that operating with the rules somehow implies benign intent. kronwall was trying to hurt voracek, richards was trying to hurt booth, tucker was trying to hurt kapanen, gauthier was trying to hurt straka, campbell was trying to hurt umberger, and neal was trying to hurt couturier. it is strange to me for long time hockey fans to be appaled by this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....deliberately designed to try to hurt Couturier. That's his only intention. You should be riled up about it.

i'll just paste this in.

kronwall was trying to hurt voracek, richards was trying to hurt booth, tucker was trying to hurt kapanen, gauthier was trying to hurt straka, campbell was trying to hurt umberger, and neal was trying to hurt couturier. it is strange to me for long time hockey fans to be appaled by this.

neal cheated to try to hurt someone. those other guys didn't cheat when they tried to hurt someone. there is a difference, and i agree neal should suffer consequences. still, they were all trying to hurt someone.

Edited by aziz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's had a few that aren't as well. Yet he hasn't been reviewed for them? Odd isn't it. His hit on Kesler was absolutely illegal and I've heard Spike defend it as being legal. I'm not going to argue with the guy about it. If you can't at least acknowledge the Kronwall hit on Kesler as being illegal then you are making the judgement with your heart and not your head.

I have stated TIME AND AGAIN that Kronwall's hit on Kesler was ILLEGAL. He left his feet prior to the hit. It's is the exception to his normal hit.

Just because you and I disagree about whether most of his hits belong in the game or not doesn't make it OK for you to say that I defended that particular hit, when I have stated more than once, and in more than one thread, that it was an illegal hit and should have been reviewed as a charge. I have also openly stated that I thought Kronwall was a P-boy for not engaging Kesler when he almost miraculously got up after that hit and challenged Kronner to drop 'em. He should have obliged him for honor's sake. If you hit someone like that, and they actually get up, you better be willing to answer. I have said both of these things more than once.

And BTW, I thought that since I mentioned you that I should make you aware of it. I did that out of respect, so that I wasn't talking about you behind your back. OK?

BTW, did you actually watch the video to see what I was talking about? I think it explains the principle of what is considered NOT targeting the head pretty well, actually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

those other guys didn't cheat when they tried to hurt someone. there is a difference, and i agree neal should suffer consequences. still, they were all trying to hurt someone.

I agree with the notion and also that it happens all the time (players trying to hurt other players within the rules). I don't have a problem with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@aziz

There's a difference between trying to hurt someone and trying to knock them unconscious. You can't tip-toe around that.

Are we suggesting that there should be a penalty for "legally hitting too hard" now? "Kronwall. Two minutes for legally hitting too hard!" 'S got a nice ring to it, eh? :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Check the history of my posts if you are really that interested in defending that. I know what I've written, and I don't drink when I post, so I know what I write. I have openly admitted that his skates both leave the ice 1 frame before he makes contact with Kesler. I have openly stated that if that one frame makes such a difference in people's minds that that split-second difference constitutes a "charge" versus a legal hit, I have acknowledged that by the letter of how the law is now enforced, that it should have been reviewed and treated as a charge. Of all his hits since the rules changed, that has been his most-illegal hit. Stated and RE-stated...again.

I personally feel that that split-second is hair-splitting, but I won't say it with the assurance that I'm right and those who disagree with me are wrong. As I said, by the strict letter of the law, it's a charge. On that 1-frame difference, you can call me a homer. But not on the Voracek hit. That was Rule 48 to the letter. In fact, to my knowledge the rest of his hits since the rules changes are similar to the hits seen on the Rule 48 video showing legal hits involving the head, or not as much involving the head.

Here it is again:

http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?catid=60&id=123678

They belong in the game. So do most of Kronwall's. So says Voracek. So says the league, and they said it before the season began that that's how they will define headhunting. Sorry if your definition differs.

And for the sake of others, this will be my last unprovoked post on the Voracek hit or Kronwall's hits on this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@SpikeDDS

Don't get so upset man. You are the one who brought this up to me out of the blue. You say the Kesler hit was illegal and then you try to justify it so I am confused as to whether you are defending it or not.

I noted the veiled shot by the way. One time I had been inebriated and withdrew from an argument so as not to fumble through it and get angry and say something I'd regret. One would think that is a wise decision and not something to be chastised for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume Simmonds invited him to throw down and Neal declined. At that point in the game, he probably should have taken him up on it, after which Simmonds would have beaten the piss out of him and the whole thing would have ended. Instead, he's going to be a marked man until he mans up and settles it the way he knows he's supposed to.

After Neal hit Giroux he couldn't get into the Pens bench fast enough. If he doesn't get suspended for what he did then he better man enough to take what's coming to him in game 4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a difference between trying to hurt someone and trying to knock them unconscious. You can't tip-toe around that.

i haven't the faintest idea what your point is. in most of the cases i mentioned, they were trying to do both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't get so upset man. You are the one who brought this up to me out of the blue. You say the Kesler hit was illegal and then you try to justify it so I am confused as to whether you are defending it or not.

More disappointment that I was misrepresented than anger, to be honest.

So, let me say it again REEEEEALLY SLOWWWLY for you. In my mind, by the spirit of the law, it's not a charge. By the letter, it may be. The rule is that the skates can leave the ice concurrent with or subsequent to the hit and still be legal. In my mind, 1/30 of a second before actual contact still constitutes "concurrent with."

I think it's close enough where it should have been publicly reviewed by the league. I am NOT saying that I necessarily think it deserved suspension, but if he got 1 game for it, I'd say if the league (or you) is/are gonna take the letter-of-the-law view and call that a charge, that's fair, so long as that is how EVERYONE will be judged from then on. If you want to call that a charge, grump, I won't say you are dead-wrong, but I will say that I don't think the spirit of the law agrees. But the letter does. So I called for a review of the hit. Whichever way it would go, I could live with it, although if I was making the call, it wouldn't be charging, and there would be no suspension. If you want to call me a homer on having that difference between the spirit and letter of the law, so be it. You must be the guy wanting the cops to throw the book at those driving 56 MPH in a 55. I'll make sure I give you a friendly wave when I pass you, OK?

I noted the veiled shot by the way. One time I had been inebriated and withdrew from an argument so as not to fumble through it and get angry and say something I'd regret. One would think that is a wise decision and not something to be chastised for.

My point wasn't to point at you about how you go about your business. It was to clearly state how I go about mine. I mean what I say. i say what I mean. I admit when I'm wrong--as I did regarding Lundqvist on another thread recently. I don't insult people, but I do poke fun if someone says something ridiculous. I do all these things with a clear mind. I almost never post something without rereading it to make sure it's saying what I want it to say--really important, because no one can see whether I'm grinning or not.

Withdrawing was a responsible thing that you did. Good for you, and I mean that. It's an issue I don't have to deal with, because I rarely drink. If you took that as a contemptuous statement, you were incorrect for doing so. Though we disagree on this issue, I realize you know your hockey. That wasn't about you at all, but rather to let you know how I go about things. I'm fair. I don't always think I'm right. But when I know I'm right about something important, I'll go the mattresses. And I do so with a clear mind except if fatigue gets me, which with some of these Western conference late games, it can.

I don't know how to make it any clearer than that, so I won't try. I'm done with this now, OK? Good luck to your boys tonight. Hope they close it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the notion and also that it happens all the time (players trying to hurt other players within the rules). I don't have a problem with it.

and that's all i've been trying to get at. one hockey player trying to hurt another hockey player is not rare or shocking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to call that a charge, grump, I won't say you are dead-wrong, but I will say that I don't think the spirit of the law agrees. But the letter does. So I called for a review of the hit. Whichever way it would go, I could live with it, although if I was making the call, it wouldn't be charging, and there would be no suspension. If you want to call me a homer on having that difference between the spirit and letter of the law, so be it. You must be the guy wanting the cops to throw the book at those driving 56 MPH in a 55

So you do agree then that hit was illegal? I still can't tell Spike. Seriously you are saying it could go either way. You are still defending it. I don't get it. Cut and dry is it an illegal hit in your opinion? Just give a straight answer. You can at least see why you talking in circles is coming across as you defending the Kesler hit.

If you took that as a contemptuous statement, you were incorrect for doing so.

I apologize for inferring. My mistake.

I don't know how to make it any clearer than that, so I won't try. I'm done with this now, OK? Good luck to your boys tonight. Hope they close it out.

I'll drop it as well. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. Allow me to quote you quoting me restating what I've said before more than once:

if I was making the call, it wouldn't be charging, and there would be no suspension.

If that doesn't quite make it clear for you, I'll say it in my best Miss Othmar (teacher from Peanuts) voice for ya: Mwaa mwaaaa mwa mwa mwaa mwaa mwaaa,

Dang it, grump. You're making it look like I like to hear myself talk!

We'll agree to disagree. That's probably as close as we get. 1/30 of a second apart, but nonetheless apparently worlds.

Again, hope your boys help the birds fly home for the summer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...