Seabrook hit

[yave1964]

I don't see this "launch."  Completely disagree with the assessment.  Not being contrary, just not at all what I see.

 

At full speed, the hit is a thing of beauty.  I have no dog in this fight, really.  Tired of seeing Chicago win and (like I said in shout) don't want to see a happy golfer...or Applebees patron.  Plus, the Blues don't otherwise inspire ANY emotion to me.  They could close down that franchise tomorrow and I'm not sure I'd notice the difference.  So, this isn't out of any colored lenses (I'm not implying yours are either) but I see a really nice hit.

What you said. Nice clean but downright nasty hard hit. I loved it. Anyone who knows me knows that if they made a perfume named Kronwall the wife and I would have about a dozen kids. Actually, I gotta go. We have watched the Seabrook hit a good ten times and I am feeling kind of frisky.......

[B21]

That is a clean hit IF he stayed low and went shoulder to chest. Watch the hit from the side view and you will see how he rises up as he is making contact and is nothing but shoulder to head. Head contact we as Flyers fans know means suspension.

 

I'm with you on this one.  There is no reason he can't go to the body.  He hadn't left his feet at the time of impact but all that means is that it's not charging.  But he did deliberately target the head or else there is no reason for the upward motion. I do think Backes was about as responsoible he could be there. He had maybe a split second from the time he turned until Seabrook hit him. 

[B21]

I agree that Backes should be more responsible for protecting his head but that does not give Seabrook the right to try and separate it from his shoulders. I am glad they made the correct call, even if it was not made right away. I would have liked to see Lucic get suspended too for being the "ballslayer" but they totally blew that call or non-call as it were.....

 

Hartnell, too?

 

(You didn't think a Pens fans would miss him only getting a fine for a pretty dirty spear to the midsection, did you?)

[Polaris922]

Hartnell, too?

(You didn't think a Pens fans would miss him only getting a fine for a pretty dirty spear to the midsection, did you?)

That's not fair B! If its not Crosby it's not an issue. And the gloved fist that was never felt was so much more vicious! Stop being a homer!

[flyerrod]

(You didn't think a Pens fans would miss him only getting a fine for a pretty dirty spear to the midsection, did you?)

 

Midsection, not let me hit you in the gonads hard enough that they protrude from your ears.........and that was the 2nd time Lucic has done that to someone in the last 2 weeks......I laughed at his Zac Rinaldo Defense..."I don't know what I was thinking"

[Old School Hockey]

Repeat offender with a targeted head hit should be 5 games but will probably end up 2 games.

[ruxpin]

Repeat offender with a targeted head hit should be 5 games but will probably end up 2 games.

He's a repeat offender? I know he's been on the receiving end of hits that received suspensions but has Seabrook actually been suspended before?

[Old School Hockey]

He's a repeat offender? I know he's been on the receiving end of hits that received suspensions but has Seabrook actually been suspended before?

You could be right? But I thought for sure he was a repeat offender?

[talloola]

seabrook isn't a dirty player, but he made a big time mistake, and he knows it, and he is remorsefull.  he knows what that feels like, as i

watched torres hit him in a similar manner a few years ago, he was also very groggy from the impact to his head.

 

 

this isn't history, this isn't the past, this is a time where we have learned that the head isn't in play.  this has nothing to do with what team

we are with or who we like or dislike, it is what is right and wrong.

 

there will be a suspension, can't find excuses for that not happening.

 

i feel bad for seabrook, but worse for backes, as he will be out of the game too, for how long, no one knows at this point.

 

 

these are the risks of the game, the speed  is the reason, and it will happen again from time to time, but we don't want players

concussed or permanately injured, so the rules have to be applied to keep these incidents down to a minimum.

 

old time hockey has to be left in the old times, this is now, we are smarter.

[Vanflyer]

Seabrook is zeroed in on Backes..realizes  Backes is too low (at the last moment) and he know he might have a head shot.  At the speed the game is played...how is a player (in this case Seabrook) avoid the head?  It happens sooooo fast....so what is a player supposed to do?  Could Seabrook avoided it at the last moment?  Just curious everyone's thoughts?

 

For me (and while not playing NHL or Pro level, I did play at a high level) there are two parts to this: 

 

1) Seabrook read the play all the way and intentionally went after Backes. I don't think he was head hunting, but he definitely wanted to extract a toll on Backes. 

 

2) Backes was completely at fault for not seeing / looking at the play (ie Seabrook pinching and flying in from the point) AND not being responsible to protect himself in no mans land coming out from behind the net with the puck. He fumbled the puck. Truthfully, had he not fumbled the puck and had his head down, the hit could have been just as equally devastating. The only difference is that he would have given himself a chance to avoid / protect himself. 

 

Regarding the speed- it is a bang bang play- but Seabrook did want to crush him (not saying hurt him). This is just my opinion. Its playoff hockey and that always means a war of attrition. It was a clean hockey play for me. 

[Vanflyer]

these are the risks of the game, the speed  is the reason, and it will happen again from time to time, but we don't want players
concussed or permanately injured, so the rules have to be applied to keep these incidents down to a minimum.

 

You can't have it both ways. You can't say that the head is off limits (particularly on that play) and then say the speed of the game, it will happen etc. 

 

The bigger issue really for me is and has been for a while, is that players are no longer protecting themselves. While I applaud the league for trying to take out flagrant head shots and reduce concussed players (or otherwise serious injuries), the way they manage it these days lets players off the hook for being accountable to protect themselves. 

 

There was no malicious intent here (other then to make a hockey play). Backes effd up the play (or the ice whatever) when he lost control of the puck. Its HIS responsibility to know where he is on the ice AND what the opposition is doing. He did not do that. He had his head down / bent over because he was fishing for the puck. The milliseconds between him losing the handle of the puck and the hit is his responsibility. I don't want to see any player get hurt, but he put himself in a completely vulnerable situation. 

 

No suspension warranted at all in my mind and I thought the major and misconduct was a joke. 

[canoli]

As much as I agree with everything you just wrote we are in a different time now. I don't like it any more than you do but it's a fact, times are different. And while I agree that Backes has to be responsible and aware of who's coming at him, in today's game Seabrook has to be aware too that Backes' head is vulnerable and hitting it is illegal.

 

Fans ask, "So what's Seabrook supposed to do instead?" Easy. He's supposed to do a fly-by. Does that suck? Yes. But maybe Seabrook is taking advantage of the "new NHL" too. He knows at worst he'll answer for that hit by fighting one guy at the most - and it'll be a player who's on the ice right then because he knows nobody can jump off the bench to go after him. I doubt he thought of all this at the time but everybody knows that's how it is these days - a possible suspension but no "real" retribution. The effort to make guys safer has only made it worse...

[Podein25]

I agree with those who observe that that was a clean it 3-5 years ago (see Lindros, Eric vs Stevens, Scott). But today it is not: Seabrook clearly targets the head, making maximum contact by "launching" into him (agree, his feet are on the ice at impact)

 

The other thing about the play that I don't like is that it's interference. Big deal right? But Seabrook knows that Backes doesn't have the puck any longer (what else would Backes be looking at behind him if not the puck?), and still hits him. Backes does have responsibility, of course, but that doesn't mean Seabrook doesn't intend to put his shoulder though Backes chin. The two are not mutually exclusive.

[Vanflyer]

Big deal right? But Seabrook knows that Backes doesn't have the puck any longer (what else would Backes be looking at behind him if not the puck?), and still hits him. Backes does have responsibility, of course, but that doesn't mean Seabrook doesn't intend to put his shoulder though Backes chin. The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

I don't know know. Its so easy to look at in slow motion. But at full speed, what are the options? I think it was totally pre-meditated that Seabrook wanted to crush Backes and read the play the whole way. Once he committed to that thought and given the timing, I think there was very little intent to go for the head and because he did want to nail Backes, not much chance of pealing away. 

 

For me, it just can't go both ways (seabrook should not have hit him v. Backes should be responsible for his own protection). On this play, its Backes fault. He knew Seabrook was coming (all the way from the blue line) and did nothing to protect himself. This is not flying elbow headhunting kind of stuff. This is a guy that put a shoulder flush to a players front. Had Backes been accountable for his own safety and picked up his head, the hit could have and probably would have been just as lethal. 

Edited April 20, 2014 by Vanflyer

[mojo1917]

I didn't like the principle point of contact being Backes' head, I agree with those saying Backes does bear some responsibility for the out come of the play. That said , Seabrooke cannot blast a guy, no matter what kind of game it is, where the first thing he hits is his head. He can turn his shoulder out so he's not making impact with the shell of the pad, and he sure as he'll doesn't need to follow through.

The guy doing the hitting had more of the responsibility than the guy getting hit .

I thought it was a tough and unfortunate play, mrs Mojo was worried about the coup contrecoup impact of David's brain on the pointy part of the inside of his skull so she was horrified and made a prediction that Backes' year was over.

[Old School Hockey]

I'm sorry, I disagree with Millbury and his hand puppet again.

I liked the Seabrook hit. I realize the puck was gone, but I don't think Seabrook knew it and Backes acted like he still had it.

Principle point was the head, but he was low, there was no launch, and Backes turned into it.

I hate that we're taking THAT hit out of the game. No call until after the fact. I don't like the call and I don't like any supplemental here.

For some barbaric reason we lose sight of what a hit is supposed to do. Remove the guy from the puck not his head.

My problem is the Chicago fan thinking/saying the hit was a good one yet the same people blasted Kronwall's hit on Havlet!

[Podein25]

He knew Seabrook was coming (all the way from the blue line) and did nothing to protect himself.

 

Where is the evidence for that statement?!

 

Isn't the fact that Backes left himself vulnerable prima facie evidence that he had no idea Seabrook (or anybody else for that matter) was coming hard?

 

 

For me, it just can't go both ways (seabrook should not have hit him v. Backes should be responsible for his own protection).

 

I also disagree with this statement. In fact, I would submit that a change in both the way the hitter and the hitee play the game is the only chance that the game's concussion problem is going to improve.

[ruxpin]

You could be right? But I thought for sure he was a repeat offender?

I don't recall. I was just asking because I really simply don't remember. I've seen a couple write ups say he's not and then others not comment, do just kind of throwing the question out there because I don't know

[Old School Hockey]

I don't recall. I was just asking because I really simply don't remember. I've seen a couple write ups say he's not and then others not comment, do just kind of throwing the question out there because I don't know

I think I confused Seabrook and Keith?

Edited April 20, 2014 by Old School Hockey

[ruxpin]

For some barbaric reason we lose sight of what a hit is supposed to do. Remove the guy from the puck not his head.

My problem is the Chicago fan thinking/saying the hit was a good one yet the same people blasted Kronwall's hit on Havlet!

For whatever it's worth, I loved the Kronwall hit.

And I don't think Seabrook realized until very late that Backes had fumbled the puck.

[Old School Hockey]

For whatever it's worth, I loved the Kronwall hit.

And I don't think Seabrook realized until very late that Backes had fumbled the puck.

The bush comments from Keith after the hit were just that! Bush league!

Wakey Wakey Backes

[ruxpin]

The bush comments from Keith after the hit were just that! Bush league!

Wakey Wakey Backes

Now Keith can be a dirty bastard (but would love him on my team). I missed it; what did he say?

[edit: I just looked it up. Funny stuff]

[Old School Hockey]

Now Keith can be a dirty bastard (but would love him on my team). I missed it; what did he say?

When Backes was struggling to get to his feet Keith was taunting him by saying "wakey wakey Backes"! POS

I don't know to load videos here otherwise I'd load it.

[Vanflyer]

Where is the evidence for that statement?!

 

Isn't the fact that Backes left himself vulnerable prima facie evidence that he had no idea Seabrook (or anybody else for that matter) was coming hard?

 

 

I also disagree with this statement. In fact, I would submit that a change in both the way the hitter and the hitee play the game is the only chance that the game's concussion problem is going to improve.

 

Sorry, but since I was a pee wee hockey player, there were two basic fundamentals to playing the game: Keep you head up and your stick on the ice. I am just completely floored at how many people think that was a cheap shot and not a hockey play. Not that matter much, but Backes is FAR from an angel and would have made the exact same hit given the opportunity. 

 

I feel like I am arguing the Lindros - Stevens hit all over again, but from the opposite side. The difference in this is that there was ZERO flying elbow / forearm shiver. It was a shoulder. Backes is the same height as Seabrook. Shame on him for not knowing he was in a playoff game and looking at his skates coming from behind his net with the puck. I take / make that hit every day of the week. I don't direct this to you personally, but for all that thinks this is a bad hit, go watch baseball (sorry TFG), table tennis or any other sport that is non-contact. 

[Vanflyer]

Fans ask, "So what's Seabrook supposed to do instead?" Easy. He's supposed to do a fly-by. Does that suck? Yes. But maybe Seabrook is taking advantage of the "new NHL" too. He knows at worst he'll answer for that hit by fighting one guy at the most - and it'll be a player who's on the ice right then because he knows nobody can jump off the bench to go after him. I doubt he thought of all this at the time but everybody knows that's how it is these days - a possible suspension but no "real" retribution. The effort to make guys safer has only made it worse...

 

Good points. It just pisses me off. Not the game I fell in love with many years ago.