Blackheart Posted April 2, 2014 Posted April 2, 2014 I think that every NHL player should keep his head on a swivel in each and every game that is played by any two teams. After all, it is a collision sport. Agreed. But especially Sid or Malkin the next time these two teams play. Quote
scpa0305 Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 OK - I just went out and watched the hit. Now I can see why Chicago would have went after Orpik, and I don't have a problem with that. Orpik clearly launched himself into Toews. I don't think it was a viscous elbow to the head or anything, however Orpik also clearly made contact to Toews head after launching into him, and that's what they're trying to take out of the game - the contact to the head. According to the rules (linked below) that should have at least been a 2 minute minor. Rule 48 - Illegal Check to the Head I like how in this clip Brian Engblom says, and I quote..."Yes, his shoulder does make contact to the side of the head, too, but that's a good check in my mind". I was shocked there was no fine. He followed through high and left his feet on a guy in a vulnerable position....Orpik knew Toews wasn't looking....that was a hit to injure for sure. Quote
Ray77 Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 Toews is out until the playoffs. Coach: Toews will be '100 percent' Quote
MafiaMan Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 http://www.sportspickle.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/fc8f6fcb523463de5b60ad3e618a8212.gif Boy, first the "controller disconnected" shift in last year's playoff series and now this? http://nhl.si.com/2014/04/03/alex-ovechkin-washington-capitals-captain/?eref=sihp Quote
scpa0305 Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 Sounds like you and Greg Wyshynski saw two different hits: Toews tried to play the puck on the forecheck; Orpik zoomed in and demolished him with a check to the shoulder that sent Toews into the boards, injuring his shoulder. Orpik exploded into the hit, his skates leaving the ice after impact. It was a hellacious check by one of the NHL’s best hitters, injuring one of the NHL’s best players. Was it headhunting? No. Was it a defender taking liberties with an opponent? No, unless we’ve redefined any hard check in the game as “borderline.” I've watched the replay many times. I stand by my initial comments. Quote
Wilbur Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 Minnesota Wild get a big point, and in the middle of a shootout right now with Chicago. Can't believe that Bryzgalov has been this good of a goaltender for Minnesota. Pominville with a chance to keep it going......nope. Well the Wild are about as good as the Blackhawks when they don't have Toews or Kane. Magic number of points to make the playoffs before losing in the first round is 6. Quote
Blackheart Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 I was shocked there was no fine. He followed through high and left his feet on a guy in a vulnerable position....Orpik knew Toews wasn't looking....that was a hit to injure for sure. I wouldn't expect any less from Orpik...it was a garbage hit by a garbage player... Quote
MafiaMan Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 I wouldn't expect any less from Orpik...it was a garbage hit by a garbage player... Rewind the 2001 video from the NCAA championship game...no bigger goon on the ice in that game. Quote
hrkac Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 Minnesota Wild get a big point, and in the middle of a shootout right now with Chicago. Can't believe that Bryzgalov has been this good of a goaltender for Minnesota. Pominville with a chance to keep it going......nope. Well the Wild are about as good as the Blackhawks when they don't have Toews or Kane. Magic number of points to make the playoffs before losing in the first round is 6. kind of a sad statement. Also, Crawford absolutely gifted that point to the Wild. ugh. Quote
Blackheart Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 OMG, what a pathetic crybaby whiner comment. This just in... hockey is a collision sport (GASP!!!). Grow a pair and accept the game for what it is. If you can't handle the rough stuff maybe you would be better off watching golf. Wow Dave, I'm actually embarassed for you...Nobody whines as much about the rough stuff more than you, unless of course it's in the 'context of the game'...what a crock... 3 Quote
Uncle_Rico Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 I suggest you see an eye doctor. I suggest you see a psychiatrist. 2 Quote
scpa0305 Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 I suggest you see an eye doctor. Dave....come on man....you know absolutely nothing about hockey. This has been so evident in my time in this forum. Seriously, it is so obvious you have never actually played the game. 1 Quote
Snake Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 OMG, what a pathetic crybaby whiner comment. This just in... fighting is allowed in hockey (GASP!!!). Grow a pair and accept the game for what it is. If you can't handle punches being thrown maybe you would be better off watching golf. Slightly reworded for consistency. Quote
Snake Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 I've watched the replay many times. I stand by my initial comments. I agree. Looked like he launched a bit in order to follow-through on the hit. Quote
scpa0305 Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 While it is true that I have never actually played the game, I think it is beyond brainless to suggest that having never played the game equals knowing nothing about the game. I have been watching hockey since the late '70s, and as a result of that I am quite secure with my knowledge of the game. You didn't even know that slew-footing was a penalty. You sit on here and troll everyday. 1 Quote
scpa0305 Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 There is not a penalty called "slew-footing". No ref has ever called that. The proper term for what you're thinking of is "tripping". "Slew-footing" is an obscure term used by some people to define a particular kind of trip. LMAO @ your absurd allegation that I "sit here and troll all day". Seriously, thanks for the good laugh. It is so funny to know that people get that worked up over a mere difference of opinion. Guess what... in life not everybody is always going to see things your way. Get over it and move on. http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=27011 - see rule 52 Rule 52 - Slew-footing 52.1 Slew-footing - Slew-footing is the act of a player or goalkeeper using his leg or foot to knock or kick an opponent’s feet from under him, or pushes an opponent’s upper body backward with an arm or elbow, and at the same time with a forward motion of his leg, knocks or kicks the opponent’s feet from under him, causing him to fall violently to the ice. 52.2 Match Penalty - Any player who is guilty of slew-footing shall be assessed a <a href=http://www.nhl.com/i...id=26304">match penalty. 52.3 Fines and Suspensions - There are no specified fines or suspensions for slew-footing, however, supplementary discipline can be applied by the Commissioner at his discretion (refer to Rule 28). Quote
scpa0305 Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 Funny how there is no signal shown for "slew-footing". I wonder why that is? I laugh at some people...they start watching the game at 40, reading a little bit on the internet and now they are experts. Slew footing is a very common term that has been around for a very long time. 1 Quote
Snake Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 Fighting is allowed? Really? Does that mean hooking, tripping, cross checking, and boarding are also allowed? What do all of those things share in common with fighting? They all earn you a trip to the penalty box. So you tell me.... if something earns you a trip to the penalty box does that mean it is allowed? LMAO @ "fighting is allowed". What a STUPID comment! No, fighting is not allowed. If it was allowed there would not be penalty minutes given for it. Get a clue!!! In college fighting is not allowed. It is policed out of the game with DQ penalties. You fight, you are out of the game...and the next one...and possibly the next three...and then possibly the season. In the NHL, just as with other penalties, you serve your time and you continue in the game. I guess that is what I consider "allowed" or part of the game. You tell others to "get a clue," or "grow a pair and accept the game for what it is" when it comes to questionable checks and dirty cheap shots "within the context of the game," yet you can't stand the idea of a fight breaking out - even though there are no rules in place to completely police it from the game. Take your own advice, grow a pair, and accept the NHL for what it is. As for play between the whistles...I wonder what percent of actions levied by the department of player safety is for incidents that have happened within the context of the game vs. fighting? Apparently the league is "trying" (term used loosely) to police some of the garbage out of the game the rest of us just need to accept for what it is. Quote
Snake Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 OMG, what a pathetic crybaby whiner comment. Grow a pair... I suggest you see an eye doctor. ...it is beyond brainless to suggest... LMAO @ "fighting is allowed". What a STUPID comment! Get a clue!!! It was a clean hit. Anybody who says otherwise doesn't understand how the game is played. Let this be a lesson to others. If you try to bluff your way through challenging me on crap like this I will call you out on it and expose your ignorance. Check-mate, you lose (again). Okay, if you say so. Anybody see a pattern here? Again....take your own advice: It is so funny to know that people get that worked up over a mere difference of opinion. Guess what... in life not everybody is always going to see things your way. Get over it and move on. Quote
scpa0305 Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 Yep, I do see a pattern. The pattern is people continue trying to provoke me and then I continue to put them in their place. Thanks for playing. That's super funny....how delusional you are. Quote
scpa0305 Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 While what you copied and pasted is in fact in the rule book, never once has a ref gone to the scorer's box and signaled that the penalty is for "slew footing" because there is no such signal. Check-mate, you lose (again). FYI slew footing has been called (Rylan Schwartz CC vs UAA 2011)...I win. There was also a yale brown game where it was called. I am sure there are many others, that's just college hockey. Haha, a very smart man once told me to never use absolute words (never, all, etc.) because someone will prove you wrong everytime. This one was great. SCPA0305 - 1 DaveK - 0....haha http://collegehockey...es/makacc_1.d09 Quote
scpa0305 Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 What signal did the referee use? My guess is he used the signal for tripping because there is no signal for "slew-footing". Damn, you sure are stubborn. ....and you are wrong. However the signal is the same as tripping. I just wanted to point out, as someone who has played the game for over 20 years, slew footing is a very serious penalty, is very dangerous and......you are wrong. Quote
Shawn-O Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 Admins, Any way we can spin substantive NHL talk into another thread and rename this one "DaveK's Violence in Hockey Great Debate"? Many thanks in advance. 3 Quote
Blackheart Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 I call out the sideshows for being the lame embarrassment to the game that they are. I enjoy the rough stuff as long as it is within the context of the game. I stand by my previous statement regarding your crybaby comment about Orpik's hit. Good for you Dave...I'm glad you enjoy the rough stuff. Quote
Ray77 Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 I must say, I'm only slightly ashamed to admit that this has been very amusing watching Dave get blown up and picked apart lately in this conversation! Quote
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.