AvsGirl41 said:
No, that's not the same argument at all. It's illegal for your stick to leave the ice. Whether or not someone is looking doesn't justify a player hitting someone with it. That's like saying that you can pick up the puck and throw it at someone.
It's understood, however, that if you don't have your head up, somewhere you will get drilled with a body check. It's Hockey 101.
I believe I said it wasn't a clean hit, but it was legal. This is hockey and we all know dirty and illegal aren't always the same thing. Players get hit in open ice all the time who don't have the puck and it's not called. Checks along the boards occur whether the puck is there or not. If we wanted to use the token arguments like the stick one above, there should be no hitting, anywhere in hockey because the majority of the time, neither player involved has the puck...but I still say it was a legal shoulder hit and not an elbow. Just because you bounce off someone's elbow doesn't mean they deliberately hit you with it.
The bottom line is, maybe it should have been called because of the puck factor. You know I agree that the ref system sucks and the players would be better off policing themselves. But the tone was set early in the game. No matter what the refs decide on a given night, the Canucks play rough and teams respond in kind. If Crawford or any of the players have a problem with that, then they need to change their style of play. Reverse the situation--I'm willing to bet good money that Naslund wouldn't have *hesitated* to drill Moore and call it a legal check.
And then butter wouldn't melt in Crawford's mouth! 
Ah, but it is the same argument. You didn't catch my point. I was simply using an extreme example to drive my point home (apparently it backfired). My point is that it doesn't matter if a player has his head up or not
if the hit is illegal anyway. An illegal hit is an illegal hit, regardless how blind or incompetent the recipient is. I know all about hockey 101 and keeping your head up to avoid a hit....but that was not my point at all.
Re: hits away from the puck: Players rarely get hit in open ice when the puck is nowhere near them without a penalty being called. Scott Stevens' hit on Kariya last playoffs is a perfect example of a clean open ice hit: Kariya had the puck. Naslund, however, didn't even touch the puck.... so it should have at least been an interference or obstruction penalty, even if there wasn't any elbow involved as you say.
I agree that players along the boards get hit sometimes without the puck with no penalty call, but rarely is this the case if they didn't have control (at the time or just before) or were about to have control of the puck prior to the hit. Again, Naslund's hit didn't meet either of these criteria.
Your argument that the Canucks should not play a rough brand of hockey if they don't want to be protected by the NHL rulebook doesn't hold water. The game is supposed to be played rough - as long as it's done legally. To suggest that players can only be protected by the rule book should they not engage in physical (legal) play, is grasping at straws, IMO.
As for reversing the situation, judging by his history, Naslund would never have hit anyone in that manner, end of story. He never has and he never will. He's not a hitter at the best of times, forget about the worst. But here's a reversal for you: What if Wade Brookbank had gone after Joe Sakic or Peter Forsberg's head away from the puck at centre ice? Would it have been perfectly fine by the Colorado faithful? I suspect not.
), but even the commentators and sports shows said there was elbow contact.
headache make iwb laugh.
