B21 Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 I didn't see the game but I was glad to hear that in his second game back (after missing 3 weeks with a concussion) Scott Laughton was able to exact his "revenge" on Matt Niskanen for the legal hit Niskanen put on him in the teams' last meeting. I am sure Niskanen will now think twice about leveling a guy skating through open ice with his head down. (End Sarcasm) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Nevermind.., Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 I didn't see the game but I was glad to hear that in his second game back (after missing 3 weeks with a concussion) Scott Laughton was able to exact his "revenge" on Matt Niskanen for the legal hit Niskanen put on him in the teams' last meeting. I am sure Niskanen will now think twice about leveling a guy skating through open ice with his head down. (End Sarcasm) Dumb dumb dumb fight on Laughton's part. Legal hit, as you say. But dumb time in the game, dumb for being just back from a concussion and just a piss poor showing in the fight. "You put me out of action for 3 weeks, so I'm going to risk this game and my health and let you beat the **** out of my helmet for 90 seconds." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adamflyers Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 I have to agree with you on this one. I have always hated the fights after a perfectly legal hit. I always felt he best way to get back at a guy for catching you with a good hit is to catch him with one if you can. If not, move on and worry about winning the game. I'm OK with trying to give a good one back after taking a good one, but the fighting is kind of ridiculous at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 just a piss poor showing in the fight. This was the excrement icing on what wasn't a very good cake to begin with. dumb time in the game, dumb for being just back from a concussion Succinct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caluso Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 I didn't see the game but I was glad to hear that in his second game back (after missing 3 weeks with a concussion) Scott Laughton was able to exact his "revenge" on Matt Niskanen for the legal hit Niskanen put on him in the teams' last meeting. I am sure Niskanen will now think twice about leveling a guy skating through open ice with his head down. (End Sarcasm)agree with the fight or not, at least Laughton had the guts to stand up for himself. Cindy would do the same thing, I am sure(end sarcasm) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B21 Posted February 10, 2015 Author Share Posted February 10, 2015 agree with the fight or not, at least Laughton had the guts to stand up for himself. Cindy would do the same thing, I am sure(end sarcasm) What exactly was Laughton "standing up" for? "I'll show you Matt Niskanen. No more drilling me with a legal hit while I skate with my head down through the neutral zone!" Yeah - real noble. The hit was the result of an embarassing rookie mistake. The fight was apparently even more embarassing (per your fellow fans). You are right about one thing - Crosby wouldn't do the same thing. He'd have his head on a swivel through the neutral zone as he almost always does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OccamsRazor Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Crosby wouldn't do the same thing Oh really doesn't look like it to me....legal hit right it what they saying a week or so when it happened to a Flyer just why is he fighting then?? you tell me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Crosby wouldn't do the same thing. He'd have his head on a swivel through the neutral zone about waist-high on Bettman as he almost always does This is fun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murraycraven Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 What exactly was Laughton "standing up" for? "I'll show you Matt Niskanen. No more drilling me with a legal hit while I skate with my head down through the neutral zone!" Yeah - real noble. The hit was the result of an embarassing rookie mistake. The fight was apparently even more embarassing (per your fellow fans). You are right about one thing - Crosby wouldn't do the same thing. He'd have his head on a swivel through the neutral zone as he almost always does. Crosby doesn't do a good job here keeping his head on a swivel - swivel to the back, then front, back, then front... looks like someone put a bullet in his forehead at the beginning of this epic dive: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murraycraven Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Oh really doesn't look like it to me....legal hit right it what they saying a week or so when it happened to a Flyer just why is he fighting then?? you tell me but, but, but... it is the pens! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OccamsRazor Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 This is fun! Tell him to take the change out his pocket so it doesn't give Sid two black eyes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OccamsRazor Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 but, but, but... it is the pens! You're right about that...too funny they are. A week or so ago it was just fine on Jake but today there will be some sort of excuse why it's different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B21 Posted February 10, 2015 Author Share Posted February 10, 2015 Oh really doesn't look like it to me....legal hit right it what they saying a week or so when it happened to a Flyer just why is he fighting then?? you tell me ROTFLMAO! 1) Nice job taking my comments and twisting them. "Crosby wouldn't do the same thing..." - i.e. - skate with his head down through the neutral zone (almost always). Your clip is Malkin unless my eyes are off. 2) That was insanely dumb of Crosby to fight Ballard for what was a good check on Malkin. See? 3) That fight was 2009. Relevant to Niskanen/Laughton how? This all goes back to how a team/player should respond to a legal hit and the pointless "revenge" taken by the fight a few weeks later only days after Laughton came back from his concussion. I/M/H/O - stupid. All of it. This example just happens to involve the Flyers. But if you want to make it about Pens/Flyers ( ), so be it. In that case, your dopey rookie made a dopey mistake and got his dopey clocked cleaned then defended his "honor" by getting his arse whupped by a guy (Niskanen) who Crosby whupped up in 2010. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojo1917 Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 If this "saga" is over then i'm fine with Scott standing up for himself, he got beat up in the fight too apparently. I was not able to watch the game and was disappointed to see he threw down with that ruffian Matt Niskanen. However good for Niskanen for obliging and kicking the kid's ass. hopefully lesson learned, don't fancy dan against the grain at the blue line. I think Scott Laughton is going to be a good, hard-to-play-against player, if this is a part of how he builds his reputation, then i suppose in the longview getting his ass kicked was necessary . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B21 Posted February 10, 2015 Author Share Posted February 10, 2015 You're right about that...too funny they are. A week or so ago it was just fine on Jake but today there will be some sort of excuse why it's different. Just fine to hit Malkin that way, too. See? But hey - don't let something that happened 6 years ago ruin a good argument. Feel free to post all of the clips dating back to 1967 of a Pittsburgh Penguin being on the receiving end of a good hip check and I will agree they are all clean hits. Ooops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OccamsRazor Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 "Crosby wouldn't do the same thing..." Ok i didn't know that is what you meant i thought you meant fight someone for a supposed clean hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Knut Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 I have to agree with you on this one. I have always hated the fights after a perfectly legal hit. I always felt he best way to get back at a guy for catching you with a good hit is to catch him with one if you can. If not, move on and worry about winning the game. I'm OK with trying to give a good one back after taking a good one, but the fighting is kind of ridiculous at this point. I only hate them if the dude can't fight.I'd actually greatly prefer a fight (which usually only causes horrific injury if you're 'Fridge') to another "Legal" dirty hit that can cause more catastrophic and career threatening injuries. I think calling Niskanen's hit "legal" to begin with is a complete B.S. cop out. Legal or not, he clearly hit with the intent to injure and I don't care what the refs or Shanahan says about the legality, if you try to injure me or one of my guys, you face consequences. Legal does not negate dirty in my book. It just means you have to take things into your own hands. Laughton's way of doing it was idiotic to be sure. But if he could have handled it, I have no problem with it and would have preferred it to him trying to make the same kind of hit happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B21 Posted February 10, 2015 Author Share Posted February 10, 2015 Ok i didn't know that is what you meant i thought you meant fight someone for a supposed clean hit. Ixnay. I hate it even more if it's a star player doing the "defending". Vancouver (using your example) would trade 5:00 of Ballard off the ice for 5:00 of Crosby off the ice any day. All good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OccamsRazor Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Just fine to hit Malkin that way, too. See? It's ok it was just a misunderstanding...calm down...WWWWUUUUUUSSSSSSAAAA!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B21 Posted February 10, 2015 Author Share Posted February 10, 2015 I only hate them if the dude can't fight.I'd actually greatly prefer a fight (which usually only causes horrific injury if you're 'Fridge') to another "Legal" dirty hit that can cause more catastrophic and career threatening injuries. I think calling Niskanen's hit "legal" to begin with is a complete B.S. cop out. Legal or not, he clearly hit with the intent to injure and I don't care what the refs or Shanahan says about the legality, if you try to injure me or one of my guys, you face consequences. Legal does not negate dirty in my book. It just means you have to take things into your own hands. Laughton's way of doing it was idiotic to be sure. But if he could have handled it, I have no problem with it and would have preferred it to him trying to make the same kind of hit happen. Not to pick on you but using that rationale - isn't any big hard open ice hit that catches an unsuspecting guy square in the torso an intent to injure? What could Niskanen have done differently to make his hit on Laughton not an intent to injure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OccamsRazor Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 isn't any big hard open ice hit that catches an unsuspecting guy square in the torso an intent to injure? No but unfortunately it's become the norm a solid legal but hard check and then the fight. But sometimes i think the only reason its going down is they are trying to get some momentum back for the hit not saying it's ok but i kind of understand it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Knut Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Not to pick on you but using that rationale - isn't any big hard open ice hit that catches an unsuspecting guy square in the torso an intent to injure?What could Niskanen have done differently to make his hit on Laughton not an intent to injure? Depends. In that particular instance I'd say if he didn't want to injure him he should have held up and given him more of a shove than a punishing hit.Has the same effect on the play and probably adds a few years to the end of Laughton's career. Honestly, answer me this, oh fan of the team of Letang and Crosby. Would you rather see more career threatening concussions or more fights? Personally I'd rather put up with a few more fights if it means guys like Primeau and Lindros and yes, even Crosby have longer careers. Better players playing better longer is better for the league IMHO. I'd much rather see the gloves drop than Niskanen leave the ice the same way Laughton did.I just wish Laughton could have kicked his ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B21 Posted February 10, 2015 Author Share Posted February 10, 2015 No but unfortunately it's become the norm a solid legal but hard check and then the fight. But sometimes i think the only reason its going down is they are trying to get some momentum back for the hit not saying it's ok but i kind of understand it. Yeah - I understand it, too. And in the players' defense, they don't have the luxury of replay...though I have seen some guys be forced to go for an obvious legal hit. It just seems to happen a lot more in today's NHL and it annoys the pizz outta me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B21 Posted February 10, 2015 Author Share Posted February 10, 2015 Depends. In that particular instance I'd say if he didn't want to injure him he should have held up and given him more of a shove than a punishing hit.Has the same effect on the play and probably adds a few years to the end of Laughton's career. And also flies in the face of everything that he (Niskanen) has been taught throughout his career. Honestly, answer me this, oh fan of the team of Letang and Crosby. Would you rather see more career threatening concussions or more fights? Being a fan of Letang/Crosby has nothing to do with concussions/fights. I don't want to see any player hurt but it is part of the game. If it's a legal hit? So be it. Fights or the threat of having to fight does not prevent the kind of hits - legal or illegal - that cause concussions. Take Crosby - his concussion issues started with an illegal hit from behind (Steckel) and were compounded by a legal, completely innocuous "hit" from behind (Hedman). Personally I'd rather put up with a few more fights if it means guys like Primeau and Lindros and yes, even Crosby have longer careers. Better players playing better longer is better for the league IMHO. I'd much rather see the gloves drop than Niskanen leave the ice the same way Laughton did.I just wish Laughton could have kicked his ass. See above. Fighting prevents absolutely nothing. How did it prevent Niskanen's hit? And - Niskanen whupped Laughton's arse. How does that prevent him from cleaning the kid's clock again should the opportunity arise? Answer me this - would you have preferred Lindros just "pushed" that guy skating up ice with his head down? Or did you want to see Lindros absolutely level him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.