Jump to content

Ducks Hockey Forum Coyotes Hockey Forum Bruins Hockey Forum Sabres Hockey Forum Flames Hockey Forum Hurricanes Hockey Forum Blackhawks Hockey Forum Avalanche Hockey Forum Blue Jackets Hockey Forum Stars Hockey Forum Red Wings Jackets Hockey Forum Oilers Hockey Forum Panthers Hockey Forum Kings Hockey Forum Wild Hockey Forum Canadiens Hockey Forum Predators Hockey Forum Devils Hockey Forum Islanders Hockey Forum Rangers Hockey Forum Senators Hockey Forum Flyers Hockey Forum Penguins Hockey Forum Sharks Hockey Forum Blues Hockey Forum Lightning Hockey Forum Maple Leafs Hockey Forum Canucks Hockey Forum Golden Knights Hockey Forum Capitals Hockey Forum Jets Hockey Forum

News Ticker
  • News Around the NHL
brelic

Hagg hit on Rust

Recommended Posts

Paul Stewart has an interesting blog post about the Hagg hit in the Pittsburgh game. 

 

Hidden Content

    Give reaction or reply to this topic to see the hidden content.

 

tl;dr Rust did not prepare himself the right way to accept a hit, and the 2nd ref made the wrong call.

 

It’s an interesting point he raises about whether or not today’s players are taught the right way to avoid injury. Is there more injury today than before? Or have they just redefined injury and removed the stigma?

 

Would a player from the 70s have ducked into the boards like that? What about the 80s? 90s? I’m genuinely curious. 

 

And that Hagg hit is as routine as they come, so the difference was the position of the player. At one point last night, a Bruin drilled Voracek into the boards behind the net. Voracek saw it coming,  stood tall to accept the hit, and just kept right on skating after. Has the new culture changed the perspective of responsibility from the hittee to the hitter?

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting that, @brelic.   That's a pretty good blog post.   Completely agree with all of it.   Just a brutal call on Hagg.   

 

Maybe they should get rid of the two-ref system.  I honestly think they got more calls right when they just had the one ref.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

Thanks for posting that, @brelic.   That's a pretty good blog post.   Completely agree with all of it.   Just a brutal call on Hagg.   

 

Maybe they should get rid of the two-ref system.  I honestly think they got more calls right when they just had the one ref.

 

The most frustrating thing is the inconsistency. They’ll call a bunch of slashing penalties - which could probably be called on any given shift if they had zero tolerance -  which are tricky tack most of the time. But then completely miss two slew foots. And I understand that it must be really tough at that level to get all the calls right. They’re human, they’ll make mistakes. It’s just frustrating as a fan sometime lol.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, brelic said:

 

The most frustrating thing is the inconsistency. They’ll call a bunch of slashing penalties - which could probably be called on any given shift if they had zero tolerance -  which are tricky tack most of the time. But then completely miss two slew foots. And I understand that it must be really tough at that level to get all the calls right. They’re human, they’ll make mistakes. It’s just frustrating as a fan sometime lol.

Especially when those slew foot/interference non-calls lead directly to a goal as they have for the last few games. The officiating for the last few games has been absolutely horrid leading directly to goals for the opposing team. How did the Flyers go from playing entire games without penalties to averaging what seems like 5 a game over the last 4?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, brelic said:

The most frustrating thing is the inconsistency.

 

 

This is the issue it happens around the league to alot of teams. This hit didn't draw a penalty and is waaaaay more dangerous.

 

 

It's got to stop how can they say they care about the players when this stuff goes uncalled.

 

 

Sometimes it only feels like it happens to the Flyers. On the Hagg hit the player put himself in that situation.

 

Anyone remember this??? This didn't even draw a penalty. Go figure look at the uni. Imagine if Mcdud laid this hit on Kuhnhackl???

 

 

This league officials suck and then they review some of this stuff and still don't get it right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, flyerrod said:

Especially when those slew foot/interference non-calls lead directly to a goal as they have for the last few games.

 

C'mon Rod no sense in making stuff up!! :ph34r:

 

giphy.gif

 

 

giphy.gif

 

giphy.gif

 

 

That stuff never happens in the NHL!!!!!

Edited by OccamsRazor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 3/9/2018 at 9:34 PM, brelic said:

Paul Stewart has an interesting blog post about the Hagg hit in the Pittsburgh game. 

 

Hidden Content

    Give reaction or reply to this topic to see the hidden content.

 

tl;dr Rust did not prepare himself the right way to accept a hit, and the 2nd ref made the wrong call.

 

It’s an interesting point he raises about whether or not today’s players are taught the right way to avoid injury. Is there more injury today than before? Or have they just redefined injury and removed the stigma?

 

Would a player from the 70s have ducked into the boards like that? What about the 80s? 90s? I’m genuinely curious. 

 

And that Hagg hit is as routine as they come, so the difference was the position of the player. At one point last night, a Bruin drilled Voracek into the boards behind the net. Voracek saw it coming,  stood tall to accept the hit, and just kept right on skating after. Has the new culture changed the perspective of responsibility from the hittee to the hitter?

 

 

 

 Stewie was always one of the good ones IMHO. I liked him and I like Frasier, but they reffed in an era with complete a holes as far as I'm concerned though.

 

This is the situation with the hit that sent Patrick to the IR early in the season.  ANd most of us here agreed... it wasn't a penalty.  They knocked out our young #2 overall early in his first season... you'd think we'd have been mad... most most here and on the twitterverse and everywhere just thought... oooh... yeah Nolan... sorry bro, but you gotta take care of yourself better man!  

 

Rust goes down though?  2 minutes for boarding and give the Penguins a PP!

 

It's a lot like the hit Randy Jones was suspended for on Bergeron all those years ago.  It was a clean hit going into the boards.  Bergeron knew Jones was on him.  If he prepares himself for the hit, he's fine, Jones is fine, everyone's good.  But Bergeron decided to twist at the last second and... like Rust here and Patrick earlier in the year, really I'm not sure what he was thinking he was going to accomplish other than get himself hurt.  

 

 

Edited by King Knut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, King Knut said:

 

 Stewie was always one of the good ones IMHO. I liked him and I like Frasier, but they reffed in an era with complete a holes as far as I'm concerned though.

 

I remember a particular game when Stewart was reffing in the AHL in my hometown. I think it was the Flames affiliate, though they flip flopped so many times between Flames, Oilers, and Bruins, who knows?

 

Anyway, in this game, Stewart had made or missed a really egregious call (according to the fans of course), and the entire arena was on him. Even the Moncton players were upset, and one of them drilled a puck at Stewart. I mean, it is hard to prove for sure he wanted to hit the ref, but man oh man, it was not on the subtle side of things. Stewart called  him for unsportsmanlike conduct lol. That just incensed the crowd even more. 

 

I remember thinking, wow, that dude has balls! Sure enough, he became an NHL mainstay, and has a lot of insightful things to say.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, brelic said:

 

I remember a particular game when Stewart was reffing in the AHL in my hometown. I think it was the Flames affiliate, though they flip flopped so many times between Flames, Oilers, and Bruins, who knows?

 

Anyway, in this game, Stewart had made or missed a really egregious call (according to the fans of course), and the entire arena was on him. Even the Moncton players were upset, and one of them drilled a puck at Stewart. I mean, it is hard to prove for sure he wanted to hit the ref, but man oh man, it was not on the subtle side of things. Stewart called  him for unsportsmanlike conduct lol. That just incensed the crowd even more. 

 

I remember thinking, wow, that dude has balls! Sure enough, he became an NHL mainstay, and has a lot of insightful things to say.

 

 

 

When I was a kid going to AHL games in Hershey, they really got on his case too so I was predisposed to hate him when he got to the NHL, but the fact of the matter was he was an excellent NHL ref for the most part.  Over the years I had to hand it to him.  He was fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, King Knut said:

It's a lot like the hit Randy Jones was suspended for on Bergeron all those years ago. 

 

Behold Randy!!!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/9/2018 at 9:34 PM, brelic said:

And that Hagg hit is as routine as they come, so the difference was the position of the player. At one point last night, a Bruin drilled Voracek into the boards behind the net. Voracek saw it coming,  stood tall to accept the hit, and just kept right on skating after. Has the new culture changed the perspective of responsibility from the hittee to the hitter?

 

absolutely 100% no question at all.  it's been happening over the last decade or so.  players (and fans) have been told time and again that they should not be hit if they are in certain risky positions, and entire strategies have cropped up to exploit the "safety" those positions offer.  time and again, players see pressure coming hard, and turn to face the boards knowing they aren't supposed to get hit when they are vulnerable like that.  it was a problem way back when randy jones was suspended for that hit on bergeron and hartnell for boarding alberts.  and those were 11 years ago.  today.........really, it is a big reason i'm not paying much attention anymore, it's a circus that somehow manages to make the game both less interesting and more dangerous.  it's only going to get worse, as there is very little appetite to "blame the victim", even if they created their own victim-hood.  few fingers are pointed at the guy flat on his back with his arms sticking straight up, no matter what he did to put himself in that position.

 

honestly, i think it a huge step that this thread even exists, that there is a widening fear that the "protect the players" campaign has gone too far by atrophying the players' willingness and instinct to protect themselves. 

 

maybe this thing can be swung around, eventually.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, aziz said:

 

absolutely 100% no question at all.  it's been happening over the last decade or so.  players (and fans) have been told time and again that they should not be hit if they are in certain risky positions, and entire strategies have cropped up to exploit the "safety" those positions offer.  time and again, players see pressure coming hard, and turn to face the boards knowing they aren't supposed to get hit when they are vulnerable like that.  it was a problem way back when randy jones was suspended for that hit on bergeron and hartnell for boarding alberts.  and those were 11 years ago.  today.........really, it is a big reason i'm not paying much attention anymore, it's a circus that somehow manages to make the game both less interesting and more dangerous.  it's only going to get worse, as there is very little appetite to "blame the victim", even if they created their own victim-hood.  few fingers are pointed at the guy flat on his back with his arms sticking straight up, no matter what he did to put himself in that position.

 

honestly, i think it a huge step that this thread even exists, that there is a widening fear that the "protect the players" campaign has gone too far by atrophying the players' willingness and instinct to protect themselves. 

 

maybe this thing can be swung around, eventually.

 

 

This isn't even the kind of thing you're talking about as it's more just Patrick not defending himself (as opposed to intentionally putting himself in danger) but in case you weren't around much then (as you said you're not paying attention much anymore) most people here and in the hockey press and media all kind of agreed that this was on Patrick and there was no suspension or penalty on Wagner for the completely legit shoulder to shoulder hit.  

 

 

The problem is this also happened to Ghost and nothing was called and IMHO it's completely the kind of hit they're trying to eliminate.

 

Hidden Content

    Give reaction or reply to this topic to see the hidden content.


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, aziz said:

really, it is a big reason i'm not paying much attention anymore, it's a circus that somehow manages to make the game both less interesting and more dangerous. 

 

Yes, I agree. Hockey has become a lot less interesting to watch because hitting - safe, legal hitting - is down, and even then, every major legal hit leads to a mandatory fight, which is ridiculous. 

 

Those big momentum hits were awesome in the sometimes long stretches between goals. They rev up the team AND the crowd. But they're all but eliminated from the game now. 

 

I get the safety aspect - these players all have families and lives to live after hockey. So I wouldn't advocate blindside hits or dangerous hits. I guess that's part of the problem, as you say, that the pendulum may have swung too far away in the other direction.

 

I honestly haven't watched playoff hockey outside of the Flyers - which means I rarely get to see it these days lol. Does hitting go up in the playoffs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, King Knut said:

The problem is this also happened to Ghost and nothing was called and IMHO it's completely the kind of hit they're trying to eliminate.

 

THAT hit is exactly what I'm talking about.  common sense says:  do not stop to play a puck in your skates if you are facing the boards 5 feet away.  current wisdom then says:  you aren't supposed to be hittable there, so go ahead and make the play.  reality says: sure, go ahead, but if that other guy forgets about current wisdom for a second, you are going to be in BIG trouble.

 

ghost failed to take his own safety into account there on any level, and i'm glad to see there was no call.  surprised, but glad.

 

note that i don't think a lot of these are actually intentional at this point.  ghost was a pee-wee when all of this started, his entire playing career has been spent with this idea that he shouldn't have to worry in that position, that it is safe to take the time to make that play cleanly.  that's the more scary thing, it doesn't even occur to a lot of these players that that might be a bad idea.  they've lost the fear that kept previous generations (comparatively) safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, aziz said:

 

THAT hit is exactly what I'm talking about.  common sense says:  do not stop to play a puck in your skates if you are facing the boards 5 feet away.  current wisdom then says:  you aren't supposed to be hittable there, so go ahead and make the play.  reality says: sure, go ahead, but if that other guy forgets about current wisdom for a second, you are going to be in BIG trouble.

 

ghost failed to take his own safety into account there on any level, and i'm glad to see there was no call.  surprised, but glad.

 

note that i don't think a lot of these are actually intentional at this point.  ghost was a pee-wee when all of this started, his entire playing career has been spent with this idea that he shouldn't have to worry in that position, that it is safe to take the time to make that play cleanly.  that's the more scary thing, it doesn't even occur to a lot of these players that that might be a bad idea.  they've lost the fear that kept previous generations (comparatively) safe.

 


See right there, I think you're crazy.  Sorry.  

 

He's not putting himself in a vulnerable position in the face of an impending hit, a previously non-existent hit comes into being specifically in order to take advantage of a player in a vulnerable position with the only possible intent being injury. 

 

You don't make that hit and think (Oh I'm just taking him off the puck). 

In this instance, the player has time TO ACTUALLY PLAY THE PUCK instead of threaten a guy's career.  

 

If you're saying a player can't face the boards and play a puck at any time , even when there's no impending hit coming then I respectfully think you're off your rocker. 

This is COMPLETELY different from what Rust did and utterly apart from what Patrick did.  

 

I'm talking about blaming guys who know the hit is coming and either don't prepare themselves physically or make the conscious decision to put themselves at greater harm.   You're talking about guys choosing to play a puck rather than simply allowing the other team to have it simply because it would require them to face the boards.  That's insane to me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, King Knut said:

See right there, I think you're crazy.  Sorry.

 

eh.  happens.

 

5 hours ago, King Knut said:

He's not putting himself in a vulnerable position in the face of an impending hit, a previously non-existent hit comes into being specifically in order to take advantage of a player in a vulnerable position with the only possible intent being injury. 

 

???????

 

gostisbehere is receiving a suicide pass in the neutral zone, and rather than make a messy play to try to just keep possession, he makes a finesse touch pass back to giroux's tape.  to do this, he has to throw on the brakes 5 feet out from the boards, which puts him directly in the DESTROY envelope of matthews.  i'm not sure if he *knew* matthews was there, but given the position on the ice, pressure has to be expected, right?  i mean, right smack in the neutral zone.  but he throws on the brakes, provides his own fulcrum, and gets catapulted into the boards.  it wasn't his concern that he was in a high risk area, not his responsibility to keep himself safe, totally good to present his numbers to likely checkers, because they aren't "allowed" to follow through with their check.

 

sorry, but ****** bullshit.  that reasoning is so AMAZINGLY dangerous, both to the sport and to the players themselves.  you are never going to get rid of players losing their heads for a second and finishing their checks, and the more dudes thinking that kind of pretty mid-ice play is safe, the more you are going to see LTIR lists grow.

 

the concept of "finishing your check" in ice hockey revolves around the idea that forcing hasty/messy plays is a valid tactic.  hasty/messy being forced by inevitable contact.  whatever play you make, you are going to get hit for it.  you can sit there and make a really really nice play, but you are going to get rolled.  if you take too long making that pretty play, you are going to get rolled hard.  at center ice, "too long" is measured in milliseconds.  that's the game i grew up loving, and that's the game that is going away.

 

gostisbehere had a choice:  he could have cut into the flyers' defensive zone to accept that pass and maintained momentum from inevitable center-ice pressure, but it would have made the give and go with giroux tough/impossible.  or, he could have been delicate with the puck in his skates to get it back to giroux, but that required stopping 5 feet from the boards, back facing center ice.  matthews did the right thing in applying the pressure that *should have* forced gostisbehere into making a bad play, but gostisbehere chose to put himself in a bad spot to make the finesse pass.  

 

we go with your desires, players are granted immunity at will, so long as they expose themselves to grievous injury.  gostisbehere should NEVER assume he is safe to pull up short of the boards there.  even if the league fully adopts this "no-unexpected-checking" concept, someone is going to forget.  always.  any effort made to reinforce that false security is a serious problem for the players and this game.

Edited by aziz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Refs suck.

 

/END

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Sorry this is a penalty and this should in no way be on Ghost....guy can't play this puck and has to worry about his safety is total bullsh it!!!

 

giphy.gif

 

This is nothing like the Rust play....NOTHING!

Edited by OccamsRazor
call the fu cking penalty!!!!!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, OccamsRazor said:

Sorry this is a penalty and this should in no way be on Ghost....guy can't play this puck and has to worry about his safety is total bullsh it!!!

 

thank you for providing a perfect example of the attitude i'm talking about.  you actually, literally and directly object to the idea that gostisbehere should have to be concerned about his own safety.  in fact, you find it to be total bullsh t.

 

i can't even get my head around how dangerous that attitude is.  again, both for the players and the game.  you think gostisbehere should have been uncheckable due to his position on the ice and the direction he was facing.  more frighteningly, you think he ought to FEEL uncheckable there, he shouldn't have to worry.  it's total bullsh t if he does, even.

 

gostisbehere absolutely could have played that puck and NOT put himself in that kind of deadly position.  rather than throwing on the brakes, he could have cut back into the flyers zone and circled behind giroux.  it would have re-set the breakout, but he'd still have the puck.  and wouldn't have eaten the boards.  it is how players handled that situation for many decades before people decided players shouldn't have to be afraid of being hit when they weren't ready.  back when it was expected that a player would keep his own safety high on his list of priorities, no way anyone stops like that, not there, not in that situation. 

 

you represent a newer, more gentle vision of the game that places all player safety responsibility on the adversary.  tells the players they don't need to look both ways, it's up to the oncoming traffic to keep them safe.  and then can't figure out why players are getting hit by trucks.  i don't get it, and it won't end well for anyone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, aziz said:

you actually, literally and directly object to the idea that gostisbehere should have to be concerned about his own safety. 

 

No you always worry about your own safety no matter what or were on the ice. But that shouldn't mean he shouldn't play the puck in that situation he was a few feet from the boards...he shouldn't be hit like that just because he could be doesn't make it right.

 

And your ass backwards thinking is the issues with these kinds of hits. I can' get my head around dangerous yours is.

 

So i guess we might as well not drive and turn across traffic when the light is green because someone could run the light and it would be my fault....cause IT COULD happen. Then why even play the game because of what COULD happen.

 

22 minutes ago, aziz said:

gostisbehere absolutely could have played that puck and NOT put himself in that kind of deadly position.  rather than throwing on the brakes, he could have cut back into the flyers zone and circled behind giroux.

 

It was a split second he could of maybe but he didn't he was slowing down heading to the board something anyone would do.

 

However with your mind set is explains a lot now what is wrong with this game.

 

And i don't know how he feels about it. Spin it how you want doesn't justify him being hit like that.

 

I'm done on this subject you made your mindset apparent i don't care to change it. Just glad you are not a ref.

 

You're entitled to your opinion and i am mine. Good say sir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

...he was slowing down heading to the board something anyone would do.

 

only over the last 10-12 years.  assuming you have been watching the sport longer than that, you remember a time when that is something absolutely no one would do.  back then, you didn't carry the puck with your head down, or stand 5 feet from the boards with your back to center ice.  it's a different game these days, and my "back in my day" crap means next to nothing, but don't fool yourself into thinking the game is unplayable if forwards make sure they are safe in that situation.  this is a new carelessness that you are advocating.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 3/14/2018 at 9:16 PM, aziz said:

 

we go with your desires, players are granted immunity at will, so long as they expose themselves to grievous injury.  gostisbehere should NEVER assume he is safe to pull up short of the boards there.  even if the league fully adopts this "no-unexpected-checking" concept, someone is going to forget.  always.  any effort made to reinforce that false security is a serious problem for the players and this game.

 

We're clearly not going to agree, but IMHO hits like the one on Ghost are not "Finishing your check".  That's what happened to Rust, Patrick and Bergeron.  Those hits were imminent and those players just finished them and those victims just happened to get hurt because they didn't defend themselves.  

 

The Ghost hit was created after he got the puck.  The player had the opportunity to play the puck.  He had the opportunity to try to shut down the pass, he had the opportunity to bump ghost without launching him into the boards and jeopardizing his livelihood and his general health for the rest of his life.  That's just not cool.  There was a conscious choice made there on the part of the hitter.  That's not the case in the other instances.  Those "victims" made conscious choices that put themselves at risk.  

 

You're essentially saying that a player is never defenseless anywhere at any time on the ice. 

I disagree. 

 

I believe players should be allowed to make hockey plays.  The whole idea of boarding isn't to protect players from getting hit, it's to protect players from having the playing surface used as a weapon against them.  

 

In my head there's a stark difference between Nolan Patrick not paying attention to a clean check coming directly at him within his field of vision and Ghost not anticipating a hit that he couldn't possibly see coming.  

 

It seems to be your assertion that players should anticipate hits coming and make plays accordingly even when they can't possibly sense them.    Maybe it's all the cowboys movies my dad made  me watch growing up, but to me there's just a big difference between shooting a man in the back and drawing on him when he can see you coming.  

 

I don't think anticipating being hit from an angle you can't see it coming from should be a requirement to this game.  That will ugly things up and make play on the ice a lot less interesting.   The rule is simple...  it's not that hard.  Don't try to kill someone who can't see you.  Why is that such a problem?  

 

 

Edited by King Knut
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/15/2018 at 11:16 AM, OccamsRazor said:

Sorry this is a penalty and this should in no way be on Ghost....guy can't play this puck and has to worry about his safety is total bullsh it!!!

 

giphy.gif

 

This is nothing like the Rust play....NOTHING!

 

There was no need to launch him into the boards.  You can still take the player out of the play, you can still hit him.  YOu just don't launch him.  Ghost wasn't admiring his no look pass.  He wasn't not paying attention to his surroundings. 

 

What bugs me about Aziz's argument is that he seems to be suggesting that there was no other option than to launch Ghost into the boards here.  As if the most dangerous form of physical play was the ONLY option for a physical play here.  Like the guy couldn't have played the puck or just skated Ghost into the boards without the shove or tweaked his angle and hit him on the shoulder or any number of other things.    

 

There are a million different outcomes to this.  This guy chose the one that injures his opponent and shows him the least respect as a fellow athlete and a human being.  That's what's at issue.  That's what's wrong.  

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

So since the players put themselves into these positions they are fair game....bag em up!!! Right?? Discuss!

 

 

 

Just look how biased Edwards is...unreal!!!

 

 

 

 

Edited by OccamsRazor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Most Liked Posts in This Topic

    • 4
      Post
      The most frustrating thing is the inconsistency. They’ll call a bunch of slashing penalties - which could probably be called on any given shift if they had zero tolerance -  which are tricky tack most of the time. But then completely miss two slew foots. And I understand that it must be really tough at that level to get all the calls right. They’re human, they’ll make mistakes. It’s just frustrating as a fan sometime lol.
    • 2
      Post
      Behold Randy!!!
    • 2
      Post
      We're clearly not going to agree, but IMHO hits like the one on Ghost are not "Finishing your check".  That's what happened to Rust, Patrick and Bergeron.  Those hits were imminent and those players just finished them and those victims just happened to get hurt because they didn't defend themselves.     The Ghost hit was created after he got the puck.  The player had the opportunity to play the puck.  He had the opportunity to try to shut down the pass, he had the opportunity to bump ghost without launching him into the boards and jeopardizing his livelihood and his general health for the rest of his life.  That's just not cool.  There was a conscious choice made there on the part of the hitter.  That's not the case in the other instances.  Those "victims" made conscious choices that put themselves at risk.     You're essentially saying that a player is never defenseless anywhere at any time on the ice.  I disagree.    I believe players should be allowed to make hockey plays.  The whole idea of boarding isn't to protect players from getting hit, it's to protect players from having the playing surface used as a weapon against them.     In my head there's a stark difference between Nolan Patrick not paying attention to a clean check coming directly at him within his field of vision and Ghost not anticipating a hit that he couldn't possibly see coming.     It seems to be your assertion that players should anticipate hits coming and make plays accordingly even when they can't possibly sense them.    Maybe it's all the cowboys movies my dad made  me watch growing up, but to me there's just a big difference between shooting a man in the back and drawing on him when he can see you coming.     I don't think anticipating being hit from an angle you can't see it coming from should be a requirement to this game.  That will ugly things up and make play on the ice a lot less interesting.   The rule is simple...  it's not that hard.  Don't try to kill someone who can't see you.  Why is that such a problem?      
    • 2
      Post
      There was no need to launch him into the boards.  You can still take the player out of the play, you can still hit him.  YOu just don't launch him.  Ghost wasn't admiring his no look pass.  He wasn't not paying attention to his surroundings.    What bugs me about Aziz's argument is that he seems to be suggesting that there was no other option than to launch Ghost into the boards here.  As if the most dangerous form of physical play was the ONLY option for a physical play here.  Like the guy couldn't have played the puck or just skated Ghost into the boards without the shove or tweaked his angle and hit him on the shoulder or any number of other things.       There are a million different outcomes to this.  This guy chose the one that injures his opponent and shows him the least respect as a fellow athlete and a human being.  That's what's at issue.  That's what's wrong.      
    • 1
      Post
      Paul Stewart has an interesting blog post about the Hagg hit in the Pittsburgh game.    Hidden Content Give reaction or reply to this topic to see the hidden content.   tl;dr Rust did not prepare himself the right way to accept a hit, and the 2nd ref made the wrong call.   It’s an interesting point he raises about whether or not today’s players are taught the right way to avoid injury. Is there more injury today than before? Or have they just redefined injury and removed the stigma?   Would a player from the 70s have ducked into the boards like that? What about the 80s? 90s? I’m genuinely curious.    And that Hagg hit is as routine as they come, so the difference was the position of the player. At one point last night, a Bruin drilled Voracek into the boards behind the net. Voracek saw it coming,  stood tall to accept the hit, and just kept right on skating after. Has the new culture changed the perspective of responsibility from the hittee to the hitter?    
    • 1
      Post
      Especially when those slew foot/interference non-calls lead directly to a goal as they have for the last few games. The officiating for the last few games has been absolutely horrid leading directly to goals for the opposing team. How did the Flyers go from playing entire games without penalties to averaging what seems like 5 a game over the last 4?

About HF.net

 We are an enthusiastic community of HockeyFans who enjoy discussing the NHL and more in our Forums.  Our members may also write their own blogs, converse in chat, post pics in our gallery, join our fantasy hockey leagues and more.  If you are looking for a friendly community to discuss hockey then register today and begin your conversation in our NET.

 

 

Contact Us

 

Recent Topics

Like what we do? Help us keep doing it!
Supporting Members help keep HockeyForums Advertisement Free
×