mnstate0fhockey
New member
You're arguing semantics here only to make yourself feel better about being "right". It was a late hit due to the fact that he had released the puck and was in a defenseless position. If it weren't late and he still had the puck it wouldn't have been late. Therefore, it was a late hit. The reason, presumably, that he was suspended is because he went in high, he went in late (ie there was no reason to "finish the check"), and he hit a defenseless man that no longer had the puck. It was just plain old dirty. Nothing more, nothing less.
Besides, it wasn't called interference, it was called boarding. It's a moot point that you're trying to make and really offers no substance. I have no idea why this is such a big issue that it's not being classified right in your mind. He did it. It was a bad thing for him to do. Hopefully he doesn't do it again. And it's done.
Of course I'm arguing semantics, and I specified that (not in those precise words) numerous times. Why is it such a big deal that I'm pointing out the improper classification of the hit by certain posters? I understand it wasn't called interference. That's exactly the point I was trying to make to those calling it a "late hit". It wasn't.
I agree, it doesn't change the outcome of the call, but I did think it was interesting enough to mention. You clearly don't think it was interesting or useful discussion. I respect that. Please ignore if it bothers you. I've made my point, so I'm content.
Last edited: