pilldoc Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 (edited) I am amazed..this thread is still going! Edited April 21, 2014 by pilldoc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stlbluesfan4ever Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 I know being a blues fan, everyone may think I'm being biased but I'm not, I understand that there is fault on both sides, you put your head down, someone will hit it, almost a sure thing, however, seabrook looked like he wanted to cream backes and he made sure that he led with his elbow and launched his elbow as hard as possible and it's a very reckless hit, no matter if the puck was or wasn't there, seabrook was playing the body and had no regard for the puck. and intent to injury was definely present, So, I think even though what everyone is saying that 5 or so years ago, this play may have been legal, it still didn't make it right then, we use to not wear helmets, or goalies didn't wear masks, and equipment was alot smaller, but as we evolved, we try to realize that sometimes changes have to be made for the sport to improve. Also, I find it interesting that the League is so worried about blows to the head but when they occur, they issue little or no penalties. Also, there is the simple fact of players are suppose to be responsible for their equipment, if they accidently get their stick tied up with a player in a corner and the player falls down, they don't give you a pass because the player should have tried to avoid your stick, you get a interference or tripping call, because you are responsible for your stick, so, let's pretend that seabrook didn't aim for backes' head, if you want to launch your elbow in a upward motion at someone, you need to be responsible for where it might hit someone in or near the head. I think seabrook got off easy for only three games, but we shall see what happens in the aftermath. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyercanuck Posted April 22, 2014 Share Posted April 22, 2014 I know being a blues fan, everyone may think I'm being biased but I'm not, I understand that there is fault on both sides, you put your head down, someone will hit it, almost a sure thing, however, seabrook looked like he wanted to cream backes and he made sure that he led with his elbow and launched his elbow as hard as possible and it's a very reckless hit, no matter if the puck was or wasn't there, seabrook was playing the body and had no regard for the puck. and intent to injury was definely present, So, I think even though what everyone is saying that 5 or so years ago, this play may have been legal, it still didn't make it right then, we use to not wear helmets, or goalies didn't wear masks, and equipment was alot smaller, but as we evolved, we try to realize that sometimes changes have to be made for the sport to improve. Also, I find it interesting that the League is so worried about blows to the head but when they occur, they issue little or no penalties. Also, there is the simple fact of players are suppose to be responsible for their equipment, if they accidently get their stick tied up with a player in a corner and the player falls down, they don't give you a pass because the player should have tried to avoid your stick, you get a interference or tripping call, because you are responsible for your stick, so, let's pretend that seabrook didn't aim for backes' head, if you want to launch your elbow in a upward motion at someone, you need to be responsible for where it might hit someone in or near the head. I think seabrook got off easy for only three games, but we shall see what happens in the aftermath. His elbow is tucked. You can say it was a dirty hit, but there was nothing wrong with his elbow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted April 22, 2014 Share Posted April 22, 2014 I know being a blues fan, everyone may think I'm being biased but I'm not, I understand that there is fault on both sides, you put your head down, someone will hit it, almost a sure thing, however, seabrook looked like he wanted to cream backes and he made sure that he led with his elbow and launched his elbow as hard as possible and it's a very reckless hit, no matter if the puck was or wasn't there, seabrook was playing the body and had no regard for the puck. and intent to injury was definely present, So, I think even though what everyone is saying that 5 or so years ago, this play may have been legal, it still didn't make it right then, we use to not wear helmets, or goalies didn't wear masks, and equipment was alot smaller, but as we evolved, we try to realize that sometimes changes have to be made for the sport to improve. Also, I find it interesting that the League is so worried about blows to the head but when they occur, they issue little or no penalties. Also, there is the simple fact of players are suppose to be responsible for their equipment, if they accidently get their stick tied up with a player in a corner and the player falls down, they don't give you a pass because the player should have tried to avoid your stick, you get a interference or tripping call, because you are responsible for your stick, so, let's pretend that seabrook didn't aim for backes' head, if you want to launch your elbow in a upward motion at someone, you need to be responsible for where it might hit someone in or near the head. I think seabrook got off easy for only three games, but we shall see what happens in the aftermath. He elevated and hit him with his shoulder. Plays like this have been illegal since the Cooke/Savard incident and rightfully so. But put the word shoulder in for where you have elbow and your statement remains just as valid. He should've bent at the knees a little and cleaned Backes' chest congestion out for him is all. 3 games in the playoffs is a pretty steep suspension. The season could be over for him if the Blues win the next two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted April 22, 2014 Share Posted April 22, 2014 Not an official rule, but an unwritten rule. It used to be an unwritten rule that you didn't mock someone who just got hit so hard they didn't know what city they were in, but alas..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canoli Posted April 22, 2014 Share Posted April 22, 2014 @B21 okay I admit it I'm lost between what's supposedly "tongue-in-cheek" and what's not in this thread. All I will say is Harnell's "spearing" didn't cause your guy even a moment's worth of pain. He barely had 1 hand on his stick when he shoved it toward your guy. 2-min. penalty - sure. Nobody is allowed to get away with that. But it sure didn't hurt your guy. At all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B21 Posted April 22, 2014 Share Posted April 22, 2014 @B21 okay I admit it I'm lost between what's supposedly "tongue-in-cheek" and what's not in this thread. All I will say is Harnell's "spearing" didn't cause your guy even a moment's worth of pain. He barely had 1 hand on his stick when he shoved it toward your guy. 2-min. penalty - sure. Nobody is allowed to get away with that. But it sure didn't hurt your guy. At all. Fair - we can save the "injury = stronger discipline" argument for later (I'm on the fence on that anyway). But...wasn't "my guy". Pens. Not Hurricanes. 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.