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.

2010-2011 NHL Season Part II - Concussions Are Serious Business, Savvy?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: 2010-2011 NHL Season Part II - Concussions Are Serious Business, Savvy?

FISH! I think this Spurgeon kid might develop into someone fun to watch. No Norris trophy guy or anything, but fun nonetheless.
 
Re: 2010-2011 NHL Season Part II - Concussions Are Serious Business, Savvy?

Thought a big key to this game was Ryan White stepping up on Boychuck after he tried to run Subban. It was an important moment for the Canadiens as a team. After that, Montreal played the game they need to play; that the Bruins have yet to show any answer for. They skated, played great on special teams, got good goaltending, and the forwards got back on D. That's 4 of 5 this year against Boston.
 
Re: 2010-2011 NHL Season Part II - Concussions Are Serious Business, Savvy?

The good news for the Bruins is they've lost to Montreal before and it hasn't had a real impact on them going forward. They've been able to rebound, take the lead in the division and hopefully keep that lead. Not concerned about losing 4 of 5. I believe they went 0-8 against the Habs a few years ago and then took Montreal to seven games in the playoffs.
 
Re: 2010-2011 NHL Season Part II - Concussions Are Serious Business, Savvy?

Alright, just caught it on VS. Don't know why he got five and a game. Two for intereference. Refs are officiating off of result again.

Cool to see how Chara didn't complain about the call, though. Tricky situation. Also nice to see the Habs take it well.
 
Re: 2010-2011 NHL Season Part II - Concussions Are Serious Business, Savvy?

state of hockey said:
Alright, just caught it on VS. Don't know why he got five and a game. Two for intereference. Refs are officiating off of result again.

Cool to see how Chara didn't complain about the call, though. Tricky situation. Also nice to see the Habs take it well.
Click to expand...

Ditto. Horrible result, it (suspension) should be rescinded.
 
Re: 2010-2011 NHL Season Part II - Concussions Are Serious Business, Savvy?

Bull. Chara has been in a hockey rink before, he knows there's a stanchion there and he knows Pacioretty is going to hit it if he checks him in that spot.
 
Re: 2010-2011 NHL Season Part II - Concussions Are Serious Business, Savvy?

jmh said:
Bull. Chara has been in a hockey rink before, he knows there's a stanchion there and he knows Pacioretty is going to hit it if he checks him in that spot.
Click to expand...

I disagree, in a way. He wanted to make an impression, to hurt a guy, but didn't want to cheap-shot/injure him.

”If you are hurt, you can still play. If you are injured, you can’t.”

Chara wanted to hurt him. Simple as that. The event that happened? No. No way do I believe Chara wanted that. Not even close to that.
 
Re: 2010-2011 NHL Season Part II - Concussions Are Serious Business, Savvy?

Chara should get more than the one game IMO. I don't think he was trying for that result, but you have to be aware where the stanchon is if you're going to hit someone by the bench like that...
 
Re: 2010-2011 NHL Season Part II - Concussions Are Serious Business, Savvy?

MinnesotaNorthStar said:
Chara should get more than the one game IMO. I don't think he was trying for that result, but you have to be aware where the stanchon is if you're going to hit someone by the bench like that...
Click to expand...

I'd say 2 at most, if I were to believe that stance (not sure if I do believe or not; not familiar with the history besides what ESPbouncyball told me). No matter the case, I can't see more than 3-4.
 
Brenthoven said:
I'd say 2 at most, if I were to believe that stance (not sure if I do believe or not; not familiar with the history besides what ESPbouncyball told me). No matter the case, I can't see more than 3-4.
Click to expand...
I'd say one extra. I don't think Chara's a dirty player at all...

My buddy thinks he should be kicked out of the league "like McSorley"...which is a tad bit of an overreaction....and he's a Flyers fan.
 
Re: 2010-2011 NHL Season Part II - Concussions Are Serious Business, Savvy?

Alright, I'll buy the "He should be aware of the stanchion" argument. The five and a game is warranted then. I still don't think there should be a suspension in this case, but it is dangerous and one game isn't out of the question to me.
 
Re: 2010-2011 NHL Season Part II - Concussions Are Serious Business, Savvy?

1st. What the hell, Chara?

2nd. If the Sharks face the Preds in the 1st round, Pekka Rinne will have nightmares of Patrick Marleau coming down the ice in a tie game.
 
Re: 2010-2011 NHL Season Part II - Concussions Are Serious Business, Savvy?

Yes, he knows there is a stanchion there, but it looked like he just lost track of where he was. He rubbed Pacioretty along the bench, looked like he was trying to dump him into the bench, finished his check (when the arm came up)... all while looking up ice to see where play was going. I didn't recall him turning to look to see where he and Pacioretty were along the boards.

An unfortunate play that if it happened 10' further back, ESPN would have included the dump of Pacioretty into the bench in their top 10.
 
Re: 2010-2011 NHL Season Part II - Concussions Are Serious Business, Savvy?

If you go back and watch again, the refs didn't even call a penalty until they saw Pacioretty was hurt.

Is it the right call? Absolutely. Interference was the correct call and it was a dangerous play.

Should he be suspended? I don't know. You can't ignore the history between these two. You also can't ignore the positioning on the ice. But Chara doesn't have a record of dirty play. I could see a 1-3 game suspension.


Why not have a break away panel on a two way hinge or something for that pane of glass. Nets break away when someone is checked into them, why not the turnbuckle.
 
Re: 2010-2011 NHL Season Part II - Concussions Are Serious Business, Savvy?

UNH GH said:
Should he be suspended? I don't know. You can't ignore the history between these two. You also can't ignore the positioning on the ice. But Chara doesn't have a record of dirty play. I could see a 1-3 game suspension.
Click to expand...

This is my rough estimate as well. I think he will get (something) if only to serve as a notice that this type of play won't go without punishment, but I think it will only be 1-2, MAYBE 3. We'll see, certainly an interesting case.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2010-2011 NHL Season Part II - Concussions Are Serious Business, Savvy?

Don't really care whether Chara gets 0 games or 20. There's a promising young kid laying in a hospital bed.

Team 990 - Tony Marinaro, specifically - reporting a c4/c5 fracture. :(
 
Re: 2010-2011 NHL Season Part II - Concussions Are Serious Business, Savvy?

aparch said:
An unfortunate play that if it happened 10' further back, ESPN would have included the dump of Pacioretty into the bench in their top 10.
Click to expand...
ESPN knows what hockey is?

For what it's worth, I agree with Brent in that I don't think Chara was trying to cause serious injury to Pacioretty. But, by the same token, I don't think Donald Brashear was trying to break bones in Blair Betts's face, nor do I think Todd Bertuzzi was trying to cripple Steve Moore, he was just trying to get the Harvard pansy to turn and fight. But when a guy does something illegal and the outcome is worse than he anticipated... well, honestly I'm not sure how I feel about the extent to which the consequence should be based on the outcome (especially where the outcome is markedly worse than the transgressor should necessarily have been able to predict), or whether it should just be based on the action itself. But I think the NHL has shown in the past, such as with the above instances, that they think the punishment should in some way reflect the outcome of an incident.
 
Re: 2010-2011 NHL Season Part II - Concussions Are Serious Business, Savvy?

aparch said:
Yes, he knows there is a stanchion there, but it looked like he just lost track of where he was. He rubbed Pacioretty along the bench, looked like he was trying to dump him into the bench, finished his check (when the arm came up)... all while looking up ice to see where play was going. I didn't recall him turning to look to see where he and Pacioretty were along the boards.

An unfortunate play that if it happened 10' further back, ESPN would have included the dump of Pacioretty into the bench in their top 10.
Click to expand...

Every NHL team has a different set up for that middle section between benches where the impact took place. A lot of Montreal players are speaking up saying that Chara should know his surroundings. Keep in mind this was a road game for Boston, and not their familiar surroundings of the Garden.
 
Re: 2010-2011 NHL Season Part II - Concussions Are Serious Business, Savvy?

How did jack Edwards broadcast this?? (didn't watch, only caught a quick highlight on YouTube with no sound)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top