Mhockey Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 28 minutes ago, snova4 said: I believe if he was, it should have been announced yesterday. I agree that it would have already been announced. Sad that he didn't. If it wasn't regionals would he have been? We will never know Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post siouxforce19 Posted March 21, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted March 21, 2017 32 minutes ago, Mhockey said: I agree that it would have already been announced. Sad that he didn't. If it wasn't regionals would he have been? We will never know The conspiracy theorist in me kind of wants to say they didn't suspend him because Duluth was already down a defenseman with Soucy out. (I'm not sure on his status at the moment) (Also, hello to the Duluth fans that are creeping here and posting what we say on Twitter!) 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoneySIOUX Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 3 minutes ago, siouxforce19 said: The conspiracy theorist in me kind of wants to say they didn't suspend him because Duluth was already down a defenseman with Soucy out. (I'm not sure on his status at the moment) (Also, hello to the Duluth fans that are creeping here and posting what we say on Twitter!) We are pretty interesting people. RWD was commenting on my blog this morning. It was a fairly mild shot, which I'm fine with. Her and I get along Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siouxfan512 Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 One of the Duluth fans made the point on my twitter that they were really surprised by the Pionk play as well. Said they would expect something like that out of Soucy, but that isn't usually Pionk's game. I don't know enough about Pionk, but I suppose we can kind of relate to that idea. I know it was fun to watch Frattin light Kevin Wehrs, but it was certainly a big time charge. Not usually Frattin's game either. You just wonder what/if these guys are thinking sometimes. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siouxforce19 Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 10 minutes ago, stoneySIOUX said: We are pretty interesting people. RWD was commenting on my blog this morning. It was a fairly mild shot, which I'm fine with. Her and I get along I can't say the same lol. I mostly stray from that fanbase in general but they like to come at me, so... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilbur Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 16 minutes ago, siouxforce19 said: The conspiracy theorist in me kind of wants to say they didn't suspend him because Duluth was already down a defenseman with Soucy out. (I'm not sure on his status at the moment) (Also, hello to the Duluth fans that are creeping here and posting what we say on Twitter!) Classy group. Post that on twitter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoneySIOUX Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 4 minutes ago, siouxforce19 said: I can't say the same lol. I mostly stray from that fanbase in general but they like to come at me, so... Just now, Wilbur said: Classy group. Post that on twitter. Consider it a badge of honor. They want to be us in terms of program success and that's undeniable. They don't go after non-successful team's fans. They hate us cuz they ain't us 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emerald joker Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 1 hour ago, snova4 said: I believe if he was, it should have been announced yesterday. I don't know how to put tweets on here but I thinking it was Dave that tweeted the NCHC reviewed the hit and chose not to suspend pionk if I read that right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snova4 Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 26 minutes ago, Emerald joker said: I don't know how to put tweets on here but I thinking it was Dave that tweeted the NCHC reviewed the hit and chose not to suspend pionk if I read that right It's clear the NCHC is extremely concerned with player safety. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tnt Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 26 minutes ago, Emerald joker said: I don't know how to put tweets on here but I thinking it was Dave that tweeted the NCHC reviewed the hit and chose not to suspend pionk if I read that right I think we need to start a thread that has incidences like these that should be precedent setters. If Pionk's barreling into the goalie isn't something that can garner a suspension, then running into the goalie is not able to be considered for suspension, unless you charge the goalie at full speed head on from the front. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post tnt Posted March 21, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted March 21, 2017 4 minutes ago, snova4 said: It's clear the NCHC is extremely concerned with player safety. ... and the funny thing is that Schlossman, who rips the NHL for player safety every chance he gets, doesn't seem to do the same for the league he reports on. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDColorado Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 16 minutes ago, tnt said: ... and the funny thing is that Schlossman, who rips the NHL for player safety every chance he gets, doesn't seem to do the same for the league he reports on. I am getting tired of his double standards. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franchise Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 25 minutes ago, tnt said: I think we need to start a thread that has incidences like these that should be precedent setters. If Pionk's barreling into the goalie isn't something that can garner a suspension, then running into the goalie is not able to be considered for suspension, unless you charge the goalie at full speed head on from the front. Head on won't do. Maybe skates first will cause an ejection Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cberkas Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 27 minutes ago, tnt said: I think we need to start a thread that has incidences like these that should be precedent setters. If Pionk's barreling into the goalie isn't something that can garner a suspension, then running into the goalie is not able to be considered for suspension, unless you charge the goalie at full speed head on from the front. You have to charge the net like the Minnesota player did at the Final Five where he threw the net into the boards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InHeavenThereIsNoBeer Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 2 minutes ago, franchise said: Head on won't do. Maybe skates first will cause an ejection Ugh... that just makes me think of the disturbing Clint Malarchuk incident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagies Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 Regarding Pionk, does that hit rise to the standard of what is suspendable? There's no doubt it was a dirty play, but there are dirty plays all the time that don't get suspended. This wasn't a hit to the head or a hit from behind, the 2 most common incidents that lead to suspensions (I would guess). I'm asking the question, not arguing against a suspension. Even if I am right, it doesn't mean there's not a good argument to be made that this sort of thing SHOULD be suspendable. I'm just wondering if it rises to the same level of things that have resulted in suspensions in the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franchise Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 2 minutes ago, cberkas said: You have to charge the net like the Minnesota player did at the Final Five where he threw the net into the boards. They looked about the same minus the puck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprig Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 1 minute ago, dagies said: Regarding Pionk, does that hit rise to the standard of what is suspendable? There's no doubt it was a dirty play, but there are dirty plays all the time that don't get suspended. This wasn't a hit to the head or a hit from behind, the 2 most common incidents that lead to suspensions (I would guess). I'm asking the question, not arguing against a suspension. Even if I am right, it doesn't mean there's not a good argument to be made that this sort of thing SHOULD be suspendable. I'm just wondering if it rises to the same level of things that have resulted in suspensions in the past. Looked like a purposeful forearms to head shot to me. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagies Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 I recorded the game and need to look at it again. If that's true, I can better understand the question about a suspension. My memory of what I've seen was that he buried his shoulder in Cam's chest, but I could have missed what you saw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprig Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 I may be wrong as well Think there's a close up video in this thread that gives a better look. Will have to find that again Ok second look it appears to be shoulders to chest, maybe helmet contact to head. Still seems suspendable to me when done to a goalie, but apparently not. First post, pg 5 of thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franchise Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 8 minutes ago, dagies said: I recorded the game and need to look at it again. If that's true, I can better understand the question about a suspension. My memory of what I've seen was that he buried his shoulder in Cam's chest, but I could have missed what you saw. I thought it was bad at first, and worse on the replay. It looks like he really tried to finish off the hit and didn't just barrel into him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petey23 Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 19 minutes ago, cberkas said: You have to charge the net like the Minnesota player did at the Final Five where he threw the net into the boards. He scored himself! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cratter Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 Looked like he was charging home plate. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxbow6 Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 1 minute ago, Cratter said: Looked like he was charging home plate. #peterosestyle 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDColorado Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 38 minutes ago, dagies said: I recorded the game and need to look at it again. If that's true, I can better understand the question about a suspension. My memory of what I've seen was that he buried his shoulder in Cam's chest, but I could have missed what you saw. It looked like the primary contact was shoulder to chest and then a bit of secondary contact to the head. Regardless it was a dirty play but I honestly think the 5 minute major was appropriate. 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.