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

moe24 said:
That argument has always struck me as weak (nothing personal). A player, regardless of their size, needs to be aware of his surroundings and needs to be held responsible for their actions... even when completely accidental.

For example, most high sticking penalties are the result of either recklessness or are purely accidental. Regardless the penalty is called, and rightfully so. The same should be true of contact to the head. A ref's job isn't to judge intent (at least it shouldn't be) nor to "give a pass" because someone is a certain size, their job is to penalize infractions when they happen.
Click to expand...

You can't compare high sticking to the discrepancy in size between players. It's probably more prevalent at the junior level, where I have more firsthand experience, but this happens all the time: big players get penalized for legal hits all the time--mostly against smaller opponents, with "contact to the head" being the main justification.
 
Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

ColbyWMHB said:
You can't compare high sticking to the discrepancy in size between players. It's probably more prevalent at the junior level, where I have more firsthand experience, but this happens all the time: big players get penalized for legal hits all the time--mostly against smaller opponents, with "contact to the head" being the main justification.
Click to expand...

If "contact to the head" is a penalty in that league and contact to the head actually happened then the hit wasn't really a clean hit. If you're a big guy and about to check a small guy then keep your elbows down and don't drop your shoulder into the guy's head... and realize that sometimes you're still going to get a penalty for contact that is purely accidental.

And one more thing. Sometimes s*** happens, life isn't fair, deal with it.
 
Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

Peter Chiarelli said that it's likely that Marc Savard's season is over.
 
Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

moe24 said:
And one more thing. Sometimes s*** happens, life isn't fair, deal with it.
Click to expand...

Speaking of lame arguments, see above. The rest of it is a decent argument that I happen to disagree with, but spare me the "life isn't fair" garbage. The whole point of making or changing rules in sports is to try to BE as fair as possible (knowing that 100% is out of the question)....as opposed to reactionary because a player happened to get hurt on a cheap (yet perhaps technically legal) hit. The old cliche about throwing the baby out with the bathwater applies here.

If "contact to the head" is a penalty in that league and contact to the head actually happened then the hit wasn't really a clean hit. If you're a big guy and about to check a small guy then keep your elbows down and don't drop your shoulder into the guy's head... and realize that sometimes you're still going to get a penalty for contact that is purely accidental.
Click to expand...

I don't think rules should be made that make some players have to play a different game, or adopt a different set of fundamentals, just due to their size. Period. I know you don't agree with this, and that's fine. But I don't think that because Matt Cooke is a ****** we should make a sweeping change to the way the game is enforced if it means we end up penalizing players for things that really aren't doing a lot of damage to the game or its players.
 
Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

Yeah you see the "Illegal hit by big guy on small guy" by some of the WCHA refs...it is a lame penalty although it is better than the current no penalty status which tells you how bad having no penalty is.

Matt Cooke is an example of why the NHL is considered a bush league sport by most casual fans. But hey ESPN was talking about hockey so I am sure Bettmen is wetting himself even though they are ripping how crappy the NHL is compared to the Olympics.

I think the best idea was forcing the team to play with one less player on the roster for the length of the suspension...and I say that as a Wild fan. Maybe the team would finally stop playing Boogaard then ;)
 
Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

The Cooke hit was the first NHL highlight on ESPN. Before the Chicago-Detroit highlights.

A couple hits like that and you can kiss any "bump" from the Olympics goodbye.

This should have been dealt with when the Bertuzzi-Moore incident was on tv for two weeks straight. I don't know why they think they can get any kind of TV contract when it's plainly obvious that no one in the NHL understands how the American media works.
 
Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

Handyman said:
Maybe the team would finally stop playing Boogaard then ;)
Click to expand...
Stop playing him and see how much space the rest of the team gets on the ice. I'm not saying that Boogaard is anything but a pylon- he has no offensive, defensive or skating abilities- but the man's presence in the lineup makes a difference.

His suspension was sort of BS. I think that knee on knee was pretty incidental. When I saw the replay, it seemed pretty clear that Boogaard was going for an open ice hit, then caught Jones' knee when he tried to avoid Boogaard. Incidental or no, it's definately worth the minor he got, but if anyone else on the Wild roster does that, there's no suspension.
 
Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

I just got the thread title. I'm a moron. But, anyway, very nice.
 
Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

ExileOnDaytonStreet said:
Stop playing him and see how much space the rest of the team gets on the ice. I'm not saying that Boogaard is anything but a pylon- he has no offensive, defensive or skating abilities- but the man's presence in the lineup makes a difference.

His suspension was sort of BS. I think that knee on knee was pretty incidental. When I saw the replay, it seemed pretty clear that Boogaard was going for an open ice hit, then caught Jones' knee when he tried to avoid Boogaard. Incidental or no, it's definately worth the minor he got, but if anyone else on the Wild roster does that, there's no suspension.
Click to expand...

Knee-on-knee hit by a previous offender and the player he hit is out for a couple weeks with an injury because of the hit. It looked like Boogaard wanted to hit him with a hip check, but instead stuck his leg out. It's bad, it looks worse, and the guy is out for a while because of it.
 
Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

GreatLakerMohawk said:
Knee-on-knee hit by a previous offender and the player he hit is out for a couple weeks with an injury because of the hit. It looked like Boogaard wanted to hit him with a hip check, but instead stuck his leg out. It's bad, it looks worse, and the guy is out for a while because of it.
Click to expand...
Previous offender? I know there was the one he had with Kent Huskins, but that was a very similar sort of situation- where Huskins sort of sidestepped into Boogaard's knee while Boogaard was bracing himself to deliver a check.

I won't argue that it's bad, nor will I deny the suckiness of Jones' injury. I'm just saying that it was incidental (therefore the suspension is kind of iffy).

I'm always a little hesitant to think about suspensions in terms of how long the injury is. Ideally, a suspension's existence/length has to do with the severity of the offense, not the consequences.
 
Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

ExileOnDaytonStreet said:
Stop playing him and see how much space the rest of the team gets on the ice. I'm not saying that Boogaard is anything but a pylon- he has no offensive, defensive or skating abilities- but the man's presence in the lineup makes a difference.

His suspension was sort of BS. I think that knee on knee was pretty incidental. When I saw the replay, it seemed pretty clear that Boogaard was going for an open ice hit, then caught Jones' knee when he tried to avoid Boogaard. Incidental or no, it's definately worth the minor he got, but if anyone else on the Wild roster does that, there's no suspension.
Click to expand...

Sorry that is a fallacy. Boogie didnt play for a while a month or two ago if I remember and the space wasnt clogged up. Even if I were to believe that somehow his "presence" makes any difference on the team it doesn't make up for the fact that he is completely worthless beyond throwing mean looks at someone and the refs are gunning for him when he touches the ice. Goons like him are another reason the NHL is a friggin joke.
 
Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

GreatLakerMohawk said:
Peter Chiarelli said that it's likely that Marc Savard's season is over.
Click to expand...

Not much of a surprise when you compare it to Bergeron's recovery. Such an unfortunate incident for both players.

This year has been such a disaster for the Bruins. I'm okay with Savard not coming back. I really don't want to see the Bruins get smoked by the Capitals in four straight. I think it would just be best if the team rested from what was a tough year physically for them and try to figure out how to turn this ship around.
 
Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

Bruins might as well tank it and try to get the #1 and #2 picks :p
 
Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

J.D. said:
Bruins might as well tank it and try to get the #1 and #2 picks :p
Click to expand...
The rest of the NHL would be thrilled. If another team wound up with Hall & Seguin/Fowler, they'd probably do something stupid like try to keep them forever as franchise cornerstones. If Boston drafts them, they'll be available again within five years.
 
Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

kennedy said:
The rest of the NHL would be thrilled. If another team wound up with Hall & Seguin/Fowler, they'd probably do something stupid like try to keep them forever as franchise cornerstones. If Boston drafts them, they'll be available again within five years.
Click to expand...

I assume you're referring to Thornton and Kessel? Surely you don't think those guys are go to leaders/franchise players...

Has Thornton proven to be that guy in the playoffs? Do you think Kessel is a face of the franchise type player?
 
Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

J.D. said:
I assume you're referring to Thornton and Kessel? Surely you don't think those guys are go to leaders/franchise players...

Has Thornton proven to be that guy in the playoffs? Do you think Kessel is a face of the franchise type player?
Click to expand...

Well, it's not just that. Going back from 2000-2007 (anything more recent would be unfair), who comes to the corefront among Bruins draft choices as being a guy that really was a standout guy for Boston?

If Kessel isn't included on that list, only Bergeron, Krejci and (to a MUCH lesser extent) Lucic come close to really filling that description.

Boston just hasn't made a name for themselves with their ability to draft/develop talent in recent years. Perhaps with Chiarelli things will show signs of a bigtime turnaround over the next several years. Montreal saw similar things in the 90s and early this decade and things seem to be changing there; maybe they will in Boston's case, too.

You wouldn't think anyone would be able to miss with two top-10 picks, and that's what the B's may certainly have.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2009-2010 NHL Season Part 3: After The Gold Rush

I'd like to echo Colby and Kennedy's comments about Boston. They do not draft well.

In fact, they draft really poorly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top