What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

I missed the fun of Detroit chasing the French Sieve from the net for a team project? What the hell is wrong with my priorities!?!? ;)
 
Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

are those subway ads behind the net on the glass at msg just for tv (like behind the plate during ball games), or is there an actual sticker on the glass? :confused:


DaveStPaul said:
Mook, sorry my man, but you're wrong on this one. .....
Click to expand...

i've typed it was a dangerous, reckless hit. but not an elbow and under the current rules wasn't a penalty. again, i think (from looking only and going on history) that cooke went in stiff, shoulder first and arm tight with the intent to level whatever he came in contact with - head, shoulder, chest [if for some reason savard turned]. and he came in just enough from the side that the ref can say cooke was just finishing his check.

i'm all for bronco's suggestion that hits that make contact with the head be immediate penalties (minor, double, major)! the fact that you can check someone in the head allows dangerous hits by guys who skate a thin line between clean and dirty. you are allowed contact in football, but not allowed to hit in the head w/o receiving a penalty. hockey is stupid for not doing the same immediately.

but the hit today was not a penalty. marginal, yes. scary, absolutely. should be abolished, uh huh. but within the rules of the game the play tonight.
 
Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

mookie1995 said:
i've typed it was a dangerous, reckless hit.
not an elbow and under the current rules wasn't a penalty
hits that make contact with the head be immediate penalties
the fact that you can check someone in the head allows dangerous hits by guys who skate a thin line between clean and dirty
you are allowed contact in football, but not allowed to hit in the head w/o receiving a penalty
hockey is stupid for not doing the same immediately
but the hit today was not a penalty. marginal, yes. scary, absolutely. should be abolished, uh huh. but within the rules of the game the play tonight.
Click to expand...

All right then. I missed where your argument differed. Thought you were doing the old shrug it off when its one of your own guys things. I appreciate the analysis. And you and I are in agreement about what the rules should be.
 
Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
I missed the fun of Detroit chasing the French Sieve from the net for a team project? What the hell is wrong with my priorities!?!? ;)
Click to expand...

It was awesome.

Slightly more awesome than listening to Jesus Crosby skate around the media regarding the Savard-Cooke disaster.
 
Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

mookie1995 said:
are those subway ads behind the net on the glass at msg just for tv (like behind the plate during ball games), or is there an actual sticker on the glass? :confused:
Click to expand...

Just for TV.

Pretty nice choke by Anaheim tonight...blew a 3-0 lead, and a 3-1 lead with two minutes to go to lose to Montreal in the shoot out, 4-3.
 
Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

Terrierbyassociation said:
Are you seriously asking this question? HAHAHAHA.

Sigh.
Click to expand...

i asked this direct question of a friend of mine at ESPN and he told me those were real... though, its possible he misunderstood. I mostly just asked to confirm it... i hate to see that trend but its better than jersey adverts.
 
Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

Patman said:
i asked this direct question of a friend of mine at ESPN and he told me those were real... though, its possible he misunderstood. I mostly just asked to confirm it... i hate to see that trend but its better than jersey adverts.
Click to expand...

They're computer generated, so in that regard they're real.
 
Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

Hey, at least mookie said that Steigerwald sucks, that's the important part. He's the worst PBP man in the NHL.

Matt Cooke doing something awful and having a pack of sheep fans stick up for him is nothing new. Unfortunately, he doesn't have the long laundry list of felonies to sit him down for a long time. I'm sure the NHL will peter out on this one too.

It's the same scummy unnecessary hit that Mike Richards gave to David Booth.
 
Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

Terrierbyassociation said:
I don't know what's really humorous about the whole situation. Apparently mookie finds something funny about it.
Click to expand...

mookie's usually pretty level headed, not sure why he's acting like a turd here. i can only imagine if it was Lucic hitting Crosby like that.
 
Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

I've stated facts as I see them.

Was it a borderline (er, on the wrong side of the borderline) hit? Yup. Almost nearly from behind. Yup.

Did cooke's shoulder make contact with savard's head. Yup

was it an elbow? Nope. Not even close.

Was it otherwise an infraction that should have drawn a penalty? Nah uh. NHL rules stupidly allow blows to the head.

Should the NHL immediately ban all blows to the head to protect their most prized assets and the general wellbeing of their employees? Without question - YES.

If it was someone else hitting Sid would I be upset? Yup.

If some moron 12 yo did that to my pee wee kid, would I for a moment consider jumping the glass and beating up said kid, then rejump the glass and beat the chit out of his father, then coach for not teaching the little Cooke better. Unfortunately, yeah- I would.

But the hit itself was not a penalty. Stupid, reckless, dangerous. YES. Did Cooke deserve to get his *** kicked by the bruins team? Yup.

Is Paul steigerwald worse than herpes? Yup.

I've been consistent throughout. If that makes me a turd, wipe me with soft paper, please... ;)
 
Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

That hit wasn't any worse than the kind of dirty crap that got Scott Stevens into the Hall of Fame.
 
Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

Why has no one advocated going back to softer shoulder pads? Why do mediocre defensemen and fourth line scrubs have stronger pads than an NFL linebacker? It's odd watching Chelios use the same cloth sholder pads he had 25 years ago, drooping on his shoulders while his defensive partner looks like he's wearing a womans' suit coat from the 80's with the the extra shoulder padding.

I would think contact to the head from softer shoulder pads that absorb the blow would be better than the graphite/titanium/plastic shoulder pads that reflect that contact right back into the head.
 
Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

I can't even believe there's an argument for trying to defend an elbow/shoulder shot to the head, and a late hit at that.

there's no room in the game for head shots and when you see a repeat offender deliberately going at someone, it's not a coincidence.

as for scott stevens, yes, he delivered some questionable hits, but he was a complete dman--a no brainer for the hall of fame.
 
Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

J.D. said:
as for scott stevens, yes, he delivered some questionable hits, but he was a complete dman--a no brainer for the hall of fame.
Click to expand...
Opinions about whether Stevens should be in the Hall aside, though, the point is that if he's allowed to throw that kind of hit then Matt Cooke is too.
 
Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

And until 4 years ago, you could clothesline a player in the NFL. What Stevens did 20 years ago is no longer relevant. I'm kind of astonished that the NHLPA hasn't gotten more involved, given its their players that are going to end up sounding like Ali in the future if nothing is done.

Another idea is to deny a team a replacement player for the length of a suspension. If you've got some D-bag getting suspended multiple times in a season on the roster, go those games with 11 forwards. Teammates will start controlling their own goons. That would probably have to be worked into the CBA, though.
 
Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

jmh said:
Opinions about whether Stevens should be in the Hall aside, though, the point is that if he's allowed to throw that kind of hit then Matt Cooke is too.
Click to expand...

:confused:

this is not about scott stevens and what the rules might have been. it's about what the rules SHOULD be.
 
Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

jmh said:
Opinions about whether Stevens should be in the Hall aside, though, the point is that if he's allowed to throw that kind of hit then Matt Cooke is too.
Click to expand...

Wow, hockey hasn't even changed a little bit since Stevens played so the rules should be the same!
 
Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

J.D. said:
:confused:

this is not about scott stevens and what the rules might have been. it's about what the rules SHOULD be.
Click to expand...
My mistake; I thought people were saying that the hit was against the rules as they presently are, not that it was against the rules as they should be.
Terrierbyassociation said:
Wow, hockey hasn't even changed a little bit since Stevens played so the rules should be the same!
Click to expand...
I'm not saying the rules "should be" the same, I'm saying the rules about hits to head are the same, as far as I'm aware. They should change them, I agree.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top