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.

Minnesota @ Wisconsin: 1/22 & 1/23

Re: Minnesota @ Wisconsin: 1/22 & 1/23

Hobbit said:
Thanks for posting...wasn't able to watch last night.

And least we forget...1 year ago....http://www.buckys5thquarter.com/wis...-wittchow-suspension-big-ten-minnesota-hockey
Click to expand...

What I don't like about Eaves is he tends to let hits like this go without serious repercussions. He needs to sit Wittchow down and the rest for some strong talk. Gopher fans may recall C. Reilly took a season ending hit to the knee last season vs Wisconsin too. The more I look at the hit, I'm convinced that's a two game suspension...not one.
 
Re: Minnesota @ Wisconsin: 1/22 & 1/23

I'm not going to weigh in on Wittchow's intent or with statements that imply what his intent was. None of us can say exactly what was going through his head or what exactly he was trying to do - the best we can do is speculate, and I'm not sure how productive that is. At the end of the day, though, the intent is irrelevant. The hit was incredibly dangerous and has no place in hockey in general, and amateur hockey in particular.

I also think, as a Gopher fan, it's worth remembering earlier in the year during the St. Cloud series when Nick Seeler laid a dirty hit that earned him additional disciplinary action by the Big 10. I mention that only to illustrate that these things can happen with guys on every team. Saying that isn't meant to excuse it, rather to simply keep perspective. However, I do see a difference in the two hits in terms of just how dangerous they were (although I accept my Gopher bias on the matter).


Beyond the actual hit, and seeing Novak in the shape he was in, what I found disturbing was seeing Eaves arguing with the official about the call. In this day and age where we know just how troubling head injuries are, we all know that these types of hits are not acceptable. I would think Eaves, whose own playing career was cut short due to concussions, knows this as well as anyone.

It's not OK for coaches to send the message that these types of hits are OK.
 
Re: Minnesota @ Wisconsin: 1/22 & 1/23

Stauber1 said:
I'm not going to weigh in on Wittchow's intent or with statements that imply what his intent was. None of us can say exactly what was going through his head or what exactly he was trying to do - the best we can do is speculate, and I'm not sure how productive that is. At the end of the day, though, the intent is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

The most convincing evidence against Wittchow and his intentionality that I see is he targeted Novak and his skates left the ice with deliberate intent to place the hit in the head and neck region. Whenever skates leave the ice with speed to target the head region, that's two games. I was knocked out in a minor league game on the west coast years ago with a similar hit. You don't know where you are after a hit like that and then the headaches come.
 
Re: Minnesota @ Wisconsin: 1/22 & 1/23

Stauber1 said:
Beyond the actual hit, and seeing Novak in the shape he was in, what I found disturbing was seeing Eaves arguing with the official about the call. In this day and age where we know just how troubling head injuries are, we all know that these types of hits are not acceptable. I would think Eaves, whose own playing career was cut short due to concussions, knows this as well as anyone.

It's not OK for coaches to send the message that these types of hits are OK.
Click to expand...

LOL. This is Eaves we're talking about.
 
Re: Minnesota @ Wisconsin: 1/22 & 1/23

I think the interesting thing will be how B1G responds to the hit. The fact that he did nearly the exact same thing last year against Minnesota needs to be taken into account. Last year, it got him a DQ+1. If that's all he gets again this time, it will tell you want the conference really thinks of that play. As a repeat offender, I'd hope he's sitting for at least 3 or 4 games, although I think that's fairly unlikely.
 
Re: Minnesota @ Wisconsin: 1/22 & 1/23

Nowheresville said:
I think the interesting thing will be how B1G responds to the hit. The fact that he did nearly the exact same thing last year against Minnesota needs to be taken into account. Last year, it got him a DQ+1. If that's all he gets again this time, it will tell you want the conference really thinks of that play. As a repeat offender, I'd hope he's sitting for at least 3 or 4 games, although I think that's fairly unlikely.
Click to expand...

1 game. See: MI player's suspension for his actions.

IMO, the first hit, okay, cheap shot, it happens. 2nd hit...um, control your players, Eaves. 3rd hit? Friggin' dirty cheap team. That right there is a trend in the game at hand. WI was out to injure the Gophers, it was BS.
 
Re: Minnesota @ Wisconsin: 1/22 & 1/23

There was another CFB by a badger that was called a boarding instead, but it was a classic CFB. Eaves after all these calls acts like he has to take a big steamer with his facial expressions(pretty entertaining) and can't believe that the refs would call these on his poor innocent team. Maybe he doesn't understand the rule book.

doosh
 
Re: Minnesota @ Wisconsin: 1/22 & 1/23

SanTropez said:
There was another CFB by a badger that was called a boarding instead, but it was a classic CFB.
Click to expand...
I thought so too. When a player gets hit from behind and is sent head first into the boards it should absolutely be called a CFB. But it wasn't. :confused:
 
Re: Minnesota @ Wisconsin: 1/22 & 1/23

Gurtholfin said:
I don't like that hit.

Every time one of those happens, there are some around here that proclaim that it's a good hit and it was a good hit back in the day when they played, etc, etc, etc.

Times have changed and with all we now know about head contact, the sport should adapt.

I'd be okay if those open ice blow up hits were legislated out of the game completely. Doesn't really matter whether the head is targeted with the hit or not as often the most damaging aspect of the play is when the victim's head slams off the ice. That can (and does) happen even when the check is otherwise "legal."

In the end, there's really no hockey reason to hit a player that hard in open ice. Separating the man from the puck doesn't require that amount of force. It's excessive and only seeks to satisfy the bloodlust of the most meatheaded fans. When a player doesn't see you coming, a poke check or even a bump will work 90% (or more) of the time.

There's no reason that a college kid (or high school on down) should have to spend a week in a dark room or risk a more severe brain injury so that some morons in the stands can get their fix. It's simply a bad play no matter how "cool" it looks or how it was legal back in the day.

These are actual humans out there and somebody's kid with real lives and real futures.

My solution? Institute a targeting penalty (5 plus game DQ) similar to targeting a defenseless football receiver. Essentially if you skate into a guy in open ice from his blindside and destroy him, you're gone.

Okay, cue the "you're pussifying the game rabble" or the referees can't make that decision in real time crowd.

Yes they can and the simple threat of those consequences would most likely eliminate the hits altogether.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
Re: Minnesota @ Wisconsin: 1/22 & 1/23

Nice post (#194) Gurt.

I saw game bits and pieces; replays only. Crap teams <strike>usually</strike> always goon-it-up since they can't compete. I love the big, aggressive hit as much as the next guy, but I hate goonin'-it-up. If that's what we're becoming, then ****-can Eaves mid season. Bad enough to get your *** kicked by your best rival, then this. If you 2 or 3 Eaves apologists don't get it, you should now.

I'll guarantee after this *** whoopin', a bunch of those 13,000 on their way home, were wondering why they went and they won't come back.
 
Re: Minnesota @ Wisconsin: 1/22 & 1/23

goldy_331 said:
Dam it, now there are TWO rational BADger fans? What next,BADger fans understanding hockey?
Click to expand...

goldy, my cake-eating friend, you're using rodent math, there are at least 20 on this board alone. ;)

I'll get beat up for this but; WI and MN should be ranked in the top 10 nationally on an annual basis. The North Dakota Little Chicken Hawks are. BC, BU Denver and others are annual, why can't we? Back in the day (get off my lawn), if we weren't and the goofs were, I was ****ing miserable at games. I HATED you guys. Now, I can't hate somebody who's not top 20 kicking the **** out of my team who is probably in the bottom 5 in the country.

* Sorry for the rant; I'm beyond ****ed and now the Cardinals are losing to the Panthers. J.F.C., what a weekend; at least the Broncos won.*
 
Last edited:
Re: Minnesota @ Wisconsin: 1/22 & 1/23

You know that Saturday night game was a disaster for the Badger faithful when Buckys 5th Quarter isn't even running a game story to sugar coat it.
 
Re: Minnesota @ Wisconsin: 1/22 & 1/23

MadCityRich said:
goldy, my cake-eating friend, you're using rodent math, there are at least 20 on this board alone. ;)

I'll get beat up for this but; WI and MN should be ranked in the top 10 nationally on an annual basis. The North Dakota Little Chicken Hawks are. BC, BU Denver and others are annual, why can't we? Back in the day (get off my lawn), if we weren't and the goofs were, I was ****ing miserable at games. I HATED you guys. Now, I can't hate somebody who's not top 20 kicking the **** out of my team who is probably in the bottom 5 in the country.

* Sorry for the rant; I'm beyond ****ed and now the Cardinals are losing to the Panthers. J.F.C., what a weekend; at least the Broncos won.*
Click to expand...

The current problem with WI hockey is simple, they hired a coach with no MN roots. :)
 
Re: Minnesota @ Wisconsin: 1/22 & 1/23

MCR, Gurt and so many others are spot on. There's no place for cheap hits in a game that's already plenty physical.

I've always loved skating teams and I don't think Wisconsin has had any team speed since 1993-1994. Skating and stick-handling are the name of the game, imo. Put em out on Olympic sized sheets and drop the puck.

Also, I agree with MCR, the Badgers and gophers should be perennial top 10 teams
 
Re: Minnesota @ Wisconsin: 1/22 & 1/23

As a neutral observer, i have watched witthcow hit a few times. I agree with gurt that i don't like seeing hits like that. At the same time, i think he tried hitting him in chest and that's where primary/initial contact was. To gurts point, there's a seek and destroy element to checking when it doesn't have to be that way. But i don't think there was malice here.
 
Re: Minnesota @ Wisconsin: 1/22 & 1/23

There is malice there. This is the second time this POS has headhunted a skater in maroon and gold. He's a repeat offender.
 
dxmnkd316 said:
There is malice there
Click to expand...

Well that's your opinion. You certainly know more about the player and his history etc. I'm just going off what i see with this hit. I slowed it down and paused it. Some hits are to the head only, some are indirect contact where initial contact is elsewhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top