2003/2004 NHL Season - Page 59 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Lemonade Stand > Lemonade Stand Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-17-2004, 11:30 PM   #871
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: gone
Posts: 17,891
Local Time: 10:11 PM
blatant homerism at its best folks

he even provided the video to prove himself wrong

there was no extension until well after the play, when he was falling to the ice. or should the elbow be next to the body when you are falling too...
__________________

__________________
Chizip is offline  
Old 02-17-2004, 11:44 PM   #872
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 03:11 AM
"Extension" doesn't have to be sticking out your elbow ten feet or even a couple inches. It simply has to be pointing in the direction of its target, which it clearly was.... whether it was sticking out 1 inch, 4 inches, or 9 inches.

I agree with Burke's sentiment: it's irrelevant whether Moore used his elbow or not.

"Whether there's an elbow or not, you have a player that is going down and this player (Moore) dropped his shoulder down and went right at his head.''



Dirty.

If you want to see an example of a clean shoulder hit, take a look at Bertuzzi's hit on Jackman.
__________________

__________________
Michael Griffiths is offline  
Old 02-18-2004, 12:08 AM   #873
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: gone
Posts: 17,891
Local Time: 10:11 PM
maybe it was dirty, but it was legal
__________________
Chizip is offline  
Old 02-18-2004, 12:21 AM   #874
New Yorker
 
AvsGirl41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 2,948
Local Time: 08:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Michael Griffiths

Even the Colorado media admitted there was elbow contact to Naslund's head. It is clear on the replay. I guess you can see things however your home team goggles will allow ( ), but even the commentators and sports shows said there was elbow contact.
Here's a video of the hit in slow motion, which clearly shows the elbow to Naslund's head. If you can't see it in this video, then I *know* your goggles need cleaning! I challenge anyone to watch this video and then say there was no elbow (pay particular attention to the last replay of it, at the very end of the video):
It's a dirty hit, but it's a legal one.

First rule of hockey--skate with your head up, or you're going to get slammed. It's not anyone's responsibility to look out for him because he's in a "vulnerable position" as you assert in another post. You skate with your head down, you'll smack into someone. It's the most basic rule of skating imaginable.

Naslund got slammed. It's obvious Moore hit him with the shoulder, but the combined impact slid Naslund down to his elbow. He doesn't extend his arm at all, I'm afraid.

And I'm watching it objectively as possible.

And as for the Colorado media--I can assert with authority that you won't find 2 local reporters who can write a matching account of an Avs game. Peter MacNab and John Kelly both asserted it was a legal hit during the game--Mark Kizla, who is the Colorado Rockies beat reporter and one of the crappier Avs writers in town, in my opinion...he simply sniffs out something catchy...and that's all that article is. A bunch of Crawford quotes strung together out of any substance, killing time until spring training.

(Terry Frei is the only sports columnist here who can write about hockey, he's the only one I'll listen to... and even he has the tendency to go for what the dumber Avs fans *want* to hear rather than what they should.)
__________________
AvsGirl41 is offline  
Old 02-18-2004, 12:24 AM   #875
New Yorker
 
AvsGirl41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 2,948
Local Time: 08:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Michael Griffiths
"It just mystifies me why this happens in this league. They talk about players not having respect for players. How about the officials? Should they not have respect for the leading scorer in the league? When does that come? When does that come?" Crawford demanded, as the intensity in his voice and his anger burned hotter with every carefully chosen word.
I find all this a bit rich coming from Crawford, who took a swing at Forsberg last night. When DOES respect come, coach, hmmm?
__________________
AvsGirl41 is offline  
Old 02-18-2004, 12:41 AM   #876
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 03:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AvsGirl41


It's a dirty hit, but it's a legal one.

First rule of hockey--skate with your head up, or you're going to get slammed. It's not anyone's responsibility to look out for him because he's in a "vulnerable position" as you assert in another post. You skate with your head down, you'll smack into someone. It's the most basic rule of skating imaginable.

Naslund got slammed. It's obvious Moore hit him with the shoulder, but the combined impact slid Naslund down to his elbow. He doesn't extend his arm at all, I'm afraid.

And I'm watching it objectively as possible.

And as for the Colorado media--I can assert with authority that you won't find 2 local reporters who can write a matching account of an Avs game. Peter MacNab and John Kelly both asserted it was a legal hit during the game--Mark Kizla, who is the Colorado Rockies beat reporter and one of the crappier Avs writers in town, in my opinion...he simply sniffs out something catchy...and that's all that article is. A bunch of Crawford quotes strung together out of any substance, killing time until spring training.

(Terry Frei is the only sports columnist here who can write about hockey, he's the only one I'll listen to... and even he has the tendency to go for what the dumber Avs fans *want* to hear rather than what they should.)
I agree that Naslund should have had his head up, but that doesn't have any bearing on whether it was a clean hit or not. For sake of argument, by the same token we could say it is perfectly okay to swing your stick at someone's head, simply because they weren't watching for it. They should have had their head up. If a hit is not legal, it's irrelevent if the recipient has their head up or not.

The fact of the matter is, we disagree on this latter point - namely, whether it was legal or illegal. You say there was no elbow. I say there clearly was. However, even if we left this point aside, how can you account for Naslund not having the puck, before or during his hit? How can you account for the puck being well out of play at the time of initiation of follow through, well before contact? These aren't the ingredients of a clean hit.
__________________
Michael Griffiths is offline  
Old 02-18-2004, 01:00 AM   #877
New Yorker
 
AvsGirl41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 2,948
Local Time: 08:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Michael Griffiths

I agree that Naslund should have had his head up, but that doesn't have any bearing on whether it was a clean hit or not. For sake of argument, by the same token we could say it is perfectly okay to swing your stick at someone's head, simply because they weren't watching for it. They should have had their head up. If a hit is not legal, it's irrelevent if the recipient has their head up or not.

The fact of the matter is, we disagree on this latter point - namely, whether it was legal or illegal. You say there was no elbow. I say there clearly was. However, even if we left this point aside, how can you account for Naslund not having the puck, before or during his hit? How can you account for the puck being well out of play at the time of initiation of follow through, well before contact? These aren't the ingredients of a clean hit.
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!
__________________
AvsGirl41 is offline  
Old 02-18-2004, 02:35 AM   #878
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 03:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AvsGirl41


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.
__________________
Michael Griffiths is offline  
Old 02-18-2004, 02:41 AM   #879
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: gone
Posts: 17,891
Local Time: 10:11 PM
if the puck is in the vicinty of the player it wont be called

and it was in the vicinity of naslund

stop whining, you are beginning to remind me of cry baby crawford
__________________
Chizip is offline  
Old 02-18-2004, 02:55 AM   #880
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 03:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Chizip
if the puck is in the vicinty of the player it wont be called

and it was in the vicinity of naslund

stop whining, you are beginning to remind me of cry baby crawford
Vicinity? It was practically half way across the zone by the time the hit was made. Normally there is a 3 second rule when determining if a hit is late. In this case, however, Naslund didn't even have a chance to touch the puck, so it should have been a penalty.

Oh, to get back to the elbow...just for laughs, I present you with Exhibit A:



Exhibit B: (notice that Naslund was already down on his knee well before contact? Hence, the "sliding down" excuse is nullified):

__________________
Michael Griffiths is offline  
Old 02-18-2004, 10:23 AM   #881
ONE
love, blood, life
 
zoney!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: six metro locations
Posts: 11,293
Local Time: 09:11 PM
__________________
zoney! is offline  
Old 02-18-2004, 11:19 AM   #882
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 03:11 AM
Oh, Zoney, you love it.
__________________
Michael Griffiths is offline  
Old 02-18-2004, 01:55 PM   #883
ONE
love, blood, life
 
zoney!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: six metro locations
Posts: 11,293
Local Time: 09:11 PM


It just get tiring. Sorry. You know I love you guys!
__________________
zoney! is offline  
Old 02-18-2004, 02:16 PM   #884
Refugee
 
Edgeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,323
Local Time: 09:11 PM
OMG you guys....give it a rest...it's just going in circles here..nothing is happening with this debate.
__________________
Edgeman is offline  
Old 02-18-2004, 08:35 PM   #885
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Lemon Meringue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Here
Posts: 3,851
Local Time: 09:11 PM
Stop the madness!!!

We went through the same thing when Walz got hit by Tkachuk. It looked really bad and Walz was out for quite a few games. Many of our fans were really pissed about it and couldn't wait for the Blues to get to town. The replay was painful to watch. Tkachuk came off the bench and flew right into him. Walz didn't see him coming because he had just taken a shot.

Walz was always cool about it. He said it was a clean hit.

Gabby had a hat trick last night.
__________________

__________________
Lemon Meringue is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com