Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Minnesota Golden Gophers 2009-2010 the last year of the old WCHA

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Minnesota Golden Gophers 2009-2010 the last year of the old WCHA

    Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
    I don't understand this reasoning. I know leeway is usually given, but technically it is correct to say a player without the puck shouldn't be hit.
    Especially when the player released it from just inside the blueline and the goalie had already made the save. Number 13 was closer to Leddy the whole way, Portwood came from the boards after the shot was taken. It was late enough I thought there would be a call, but obviously was not surprised when there wasn't one.
    the state of hockey is good

    Comment


    • Re: Minnesota Golden Gophers 2009-2010 the last year of the old WCHA

      Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
      I don't understand this reasoning. I know leeway is usually given, but technically it is correct to say a player without the puck shouldn't be hit.
      Ummm, no that is not correct. Any player is allowed to finish their check even if the opponent has gotten rid of the puck.

      Comment


      • Re: Minnesota Golden Gophers 2009-2010 the last year of the old WCHA

        Originally posted by 61ache View Post
        Ummm, no that is not correct. Any player is allowed to finish their check even if the opponent has gotten rid of the puck.
        Ok, fine. It was still a hit to the head which last time I checked is not warranted. Leddy is pretty lucky the guy didn't clean his clock into the boards cause it would have been a lot more than a broken jaw.
        **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

        Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
        Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

        Comment


        • Re: Minnesota Golden Gophers 2009-2010 the last year of the old WCHA

          Originally posted by HarleyMC View Post
          a rookie fopaux

          speaking of rookie faux pas.

          Comment


          • Re: Minnesota Golden Gophers 2009-2010 the last year of the old WCHA

            Originally posted by 61ache View Post
            Ummm, no that is not correct. Any player is allowed to finish their check even if the opponent has gotten rid of the puck.
            So, there is no such thing as a late hit?

            Huh, learn something new everyday.
            the state of hockey is good

            Comment


            • Re: Minnesota Golden Gophers 2009-2010 the last year of the old WCHA

              No time to look up the exact rule, but don't you get "two steps" after the player releases the puck to finish your check (and in practice, the refs usually give you 3-4), after which point it's called a charge?

              Comment


              • Re: Minnesota Golden Gophers 2009-2010 the last year of the old WCHA

                Originally posted by kdilks View Post
                No time to look up the exact rule, but don't you get "two steps" after the player releases the puck to finish your check (and in practice, the refs usually give you 3-4), after which point it's called a charge?
                I know prior to last year they talked about two steps/two seconds or else it would be interference/holding. But that was only pertaining to play along the boards and how long you can tie them up.

                You get two strides or it is a charge, but that is rarely called unless someone takes literally 6-7 and is going full speed.

                It wasn't super-late IMHO, but it was a bit. Once again, I'm not very angry about there being no call. It's just unfortunate. It looked like he was getting some confidence and he was really starting to show his puckmoving skills.
                the state of hockey is good

                Comment


                • Re: Minnesota Golden Gophers 2009-2010 the last year of the old WCHA

                  Originally posted by state of hockey View Post
                  So, there is no such thing as a late hit?

                  Huh, learn something new everyday.
                  I didn't say that, either. When checking, your feet have to be stationary and on the ice. Once you line up your opponent, who has the puck, your feet stop moving (over two full strides and its a charge), you can finish your check. Got it?

                  Comment


                  • Re: Minnesota Golden Gophers 2009-2010 the last year of the old WCHA

                    Originally posted by 61ache View Post
                    I didn't say that, either. When checking, your feet have to be stationary and on the ice. Once you line up your opponent, who has the puck, your feet stop moving (over two full strides and its a charge), you can finish your check. Got it?
                    I am pretty sure that you can be called for a late hit even though your feet aren't moving. It doesn't depend solely on that.
                    the state of hockey is good

                    Comment


                    • Re: Minnesota Golden Gophers 2009-2010 the last year of the old WCHA

                      Originally posted by 61ache View Post
                      Ummm, no that is not correct. Any player is allowed to finish their check even if the opponent has gotten rid of the puck.
                      There is a difference between finishing a check and refusing to change direction after it is clear the opponent has completed his play. There was plenty of time for the UAA player to alter his direction. The play was made, Portwood continued striding, and turned his shoulder directly into Leddy's head. Again, I don't think he was trying to bust anyone's jaw, but his actions outside of the laws of the game did in fact do just that.
                      For what it's worth, Carman was called for a penalty in the second period Friday that was almost identical to the play in question, with the difference being that Carman hit the guy in the body and not the head. Which isn't to say Carman is somehow a nicer guy, just that where he landed the hit was in a much less dangerous spot. Bottom line, you are responsible for the movements of your own body. If you turn around and inadvertently crack a guy in the helmet with your stick, you are called for a penalty. If you lay a check into a guy's numbers, you are called for a penalty. If you turn your shoulder directly into a guys head as you hit him, it is a penalty. There is even stipulation in the rulebook for such a thing, "roughing, contact to the head."
                      So there were two items of rule infringement at play.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Minnesota Golden Gophers 2009-2010 the last year of the old WCHA

                        Originally posted by Stauber1 View Post
                        For what it's worth, Carman was called for a penalty in the second period Friday that was almost identical to the play in question, with the difference being that Carman hit the guy in the body and not the head.
                        Carman very clearly had his arms up and hit the guy in the face. It was a textbook elbowing penalty.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Minnesota Golden Gophers 2009-2010 the last year of the old WCHA

                          Originally posted by wasmania View Post
                          speaking of rookie faux pas.
                          I'm an urban academic was, you're just a dusty academic rube.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Minnesota Golden Gophers 2009-2010 the last year of the old WCHA

                            Originally posted by kdilks View Post
                            Carman very clearly had his arms up and hit the guy in the face. It was a textbook elbowing penalty.
                            And the Seawolf clearly went head hunting.
                            **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

                            Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
                            Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Minnesota Golden Gophers 2009-2010 the last year of the old WCHA

                              Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
                              And the Seawolf clearly went head hunting.
                              The Seawolf went to lay a big hit, Leddy is the one that put/kept his head down in a vulnerable position. If the rules were strictly enforced as written, anybody could draw a penalty by suddenly putting their head down as they're about to get hit. That's why there's generally a discrepancy in enforcement between hits like Carman's, where the offender goes for the head instead of the body, and hits like the one on Leddy, where the person getting hit puts their head in the way of their body.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Minnesota Golden Gophers 2009-2010 the last year of the old WCHA

                                Originally posted by 61ache View Post
                                The problem with this is:

                                A) He didn't charge..
                                B) He didn't leave his feet to make contact
                                C) He didn't lead with his elbow or forarm

                                So how can you classify "intent to injur" when there are no precursers to point to a malicous hit.

                                Also, everyone is talking about the hit being late as he'd already shot the puck...and? Because the player shot the puck, a late hit it does not make.
                                Let's see what the official ruling is as a result of the video review. My guess based upon Lucia's comments is it will not be ruled as an "intent to injure". However, IMO a suspension is highly probable, even if at the very least in an effort to remove any positive reinforcement associated with aggressive and dangerous blows to the head of that nature.

                                It wasn't that long ago that Tom Pohl lay motionless on the ice after taking an elbow to the head and subsequently hitting his head on the boards. His college hockey career ended that night with a skull fracture. Let's not forget these are college athletes not professionals. They have bright future ahead of them. Dangerous hits to the head in college hockey, as Don Lucia firmly stated, should always be enforced as a "zero tolerance" policy.
                                Last edited by HarleyMC; 11-02-2009, 09:32 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X