What's new
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.

Minnesota @ Minnesota-Duluth 10/15/11

Re: Minnesota @ Minnesota-Duluth 10/15/11

No, I don't.

He ran him. I agree that he didn't bodycheck him, but by definition he ran him.
Correct. Plus the bodychecking a goalie situation is so rare, there's really no point qualifying "running a goalie" with that stipulation. Players bump goalies and knock them down without trying to avoid them far more often, so that is the definition that makes the most sense.
 
Re: Minnesota @ Minnesota-Duluth 10/15/11

Yeah, and that's fine. But in that situation it is his responsibility to "avoid" the goalie. Since he was negligent in his job he belongs in the box for running the goaltender.

It should have been a penalty, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying that he wasn't trying to make it a dirty play/didn't have malicious intent/whatever.
 
Re: Minnesota @ Minnesota-Duluth 10/15/11

It should have been a penalty, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying that he wasn't trying to make it a dirty play/didn't have malicious intent/whatever.

I disagree again. If you purposely don't avoid hitting the goalie then you have intent. You're really splitting hairs here that don't exist.
 
Re: Minnesota @ Minnesota-Duluth 10/15/11

It should have been a penalty, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying that he wasn't trying to make it a dirty play/didn't have malicious intent/whatever.
You don't have to have malicious intent to run a goalie. All you have to do is skate toward him at full speed and make no effort to avoid him.

Scooby, brent is an expert at splitting hairs that don't exist. The dude's balding, after all. :p
 
Re: Minnesota @ Minnesota-Duluth 10/15/11

You don't have to have malicious intent to run a goalie. All you have to do is skate toward him at full speed and make no effort to avoid him.

JFC. READ. I am saying that he had no malicious intent. He wasn't trying to kill Patty. He just didn't try and avoid him.
 
Re: Minnesota @ Minnesota-Duluth 10/15/11

JFC. READ. I am saying that he had no malicious intent. He wasn't trying to kill Patty. He just didn't try and avoid him.

How do you know? He went full speed into a goaltender. Any number of things could have happened. You're testifying to what another human being was thinking. That's impossible to know.
 
Re: Minnesota @ Minnesota-Duluth 10/15/11

JFC. READ. I am saying that he had no malicious intent. He wasn't trying to kill Patty. He just didn't try and avoid him.
You read. We're saying he doesn't NEED intent to be running the goalie. All he needs to do is what he did: skate full speed and make no effort to avoid contact.
 
Re: Minnesota @ Minnesota-Duluth 10/15/11

You read. We're saying he doesn't NEED intent to be running the goalie. All he needs to do is what he did: skate full speed and make no effort to avoid contact.

That's ok. He didn't mean to run the goalie. It's all good.
 
Re: Minnesota @ Minnesota-Duluth 10/15/11

One thing is certain - this is defiantly not the same team as the past 3 years

We've all been expecting the gophs to put it together in recent years. Looks like this might be the year--especially if they're showing a little fire in the belly.
 
Back
Top