Jump to content

First Round Playoff Thread


Eleven

Recommended Posts

I finally watch the Seabrook hit. Is that really what all the fuss is about? It looked like a pretty good hit in an area "where you know you can get hit" (as they say). I don't think he will get that many games (if any) and everyone will be upset that the league doesn't care about headshots, blah, blah, blah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I finally watch the Seabrook hit. Is that really what all the fuss is about? It looked like a pretty good hit in an area "where you know you can get hit" (as they say). I don't think he will get that many games (if any) and everyone will be upset that the league doesn't care about headshots, blah, blah, blah.

 

He got three. If he hadn't brought his shoulder into Backes's face, it wouldn't have been a problem. But he did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I finally watch the Seabrook hit. Is that really what all the fuss is about? It looked like a pretty good hit in an area "where you know you can get hit" (as they say). I don't think he will get that many games (if any) and everyone will be upset that the league doesn't care about headshots, blah, blah, blah.

 

Did you see where the puck was? That alone cancels out any possibility of a "good hit".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He didn't even have the puck. That alone makes it interference.

 

Agreed, but if he hadn't targeted so high it would have just been boarding, still illegal. Seabrook launches himself with his shoulder and connects with Backes head. Backes was just coming up from looking at the puck. What makes it so devastating is the high hit. You can't say he wasn't targeting the head. There was no need to go high. Both guys are pretty tall. The only saving grace is that it was an intense chippy game and both sides were taking liberties, but Seabrook crossed a line and it is too bad, because usually he is a tough but steady player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He didn't even have the puck. That alone makes it interference.

He stopped the puck on the boards, thought he had it, went to skate and was hit less than a 1/4 of a second later. That is not interference. After watching it a few more times it was definitely a hit to the head, but I want my players to make that hit every time (sans headshot).

Edited by SwampD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He stopped the puck on the boards, thought he had it, went to skate and was hit less than a 1/4 of a second later. That is not interference. After watching it a few more times it was definitely a hit to the head, but I want my players to make that hit every time (sans headshot).

 

I may be wrong but I have heard that the league made no mention of the head or the hit to the head in their explanation of the suspension and the reasons for the suspension. Apparently there was enough to suspend regardless of the headshot ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may be wrong but I have heard that the league made no mention of the head or the hit to the head in their explanation of the suspension and the reasons for the suspension. Apparently there was enough to suspend regardless of the headshot ?

Yeah, um,… k. So,… um, would the league have suspended him for the same hit if there was no headshot and play continued? I really doubt it. The league can say whatever they want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that it wasn't interference (he just played the puck.)

I agree that without the head-shot, it probably wouldn't be suspension-worthy.

 

That said, it was a brutal head shot and, as such, should have been far more that three games. If they really want that out of the game - and they should - then there has to be more of a consequence than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that it wasn't interference (he just played the puck.)

I agree that without the head-shot, it probably wouldn't be suspension-worthy.

 

That said, it was a brutal head shot and, as such, should have been far more that three games. If they really want that out of the game - and they should - then there has to be more of a consequence than that.

 

Yup. Until suspensions start making people's jaws drop, there will be no deterrence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup. Until suspensions start making people's jaws drop, there will be no deterrence.

 

I've never been one to buy into the "keep him out as long as the guy that he hit is out" due to the "injury history" portion of how long the guy will be out. However, it should be at least as long as one would reasonably expect a normal player (i.e., without a notable history) to be out due to hit like that. Blasting a guy in the head should reasonably be expected to cause a concussion and I'm sure that there are plenty of statistics for how long those typically take to recover from. I'm pretty sure that it's more than three games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matt Cooke is done. Thing is, I know I've seen that exact hit somewhere in the last two weeks, I don't remember where, and there was no hearing, even by phone.

 

Seriously, why is he even allowed in the league anymore? Pat Kaleta was pretty much thrown out, yet scumbag Matt Cooke continues to cheapshot people, get suspended, yet be allowed to return to cheapshot even more people.

 

ENOUGH! He shouldn't be allowed to play in the NHL again. Ever.

 

Of course, getting rid of him would mean half Boston's roster would soon have to follow. Can't have that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously, why is he even allowed in the league anymore? Pat Kaleta was pretty much thrown out, yet scumbag Matt Cooke continues to cheapshot people, get suspended, yet be allowed to return to cheapshot even more people.

 

ENOUGH! He shouldn't be allowed to play in the NHL again. Ever.

 

Of course, getting rid of him would mean half Boston's roster would soon have to follow. Can't have that.

If Bertuzzi gets to keep playing after what he did to Moore then no one will ever get thrown out. Players seem to be trying to hurt each other a lot more so far this playoffs.

Edited by nucci
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously, why is he even allowed in the league anymore? Pat Kaleta was pretty much thrown out, yet scumbag Matt Cooke continues to cheapshot people, get suspended, yet be allowed to return to cheapshot even more people.

 

ENOUGH! He shouldn't be allowed to play in the NHL again. Ever.

 

Of course, getting rid of him would mean half Boston's roster would soon have to follow. Can't have that.

 

He hasn't been suspended since 2011. So to say that he has continued to cheapshot people is a bit of a stretch. I'll be curious to see what they do with him here since if I'm reading the rules correctly, he is not a repeat offender thanks to that 3 year run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He hasn't been suspended since 2011. So to say that he has continued to cheapshot people is a bit of a stretch. I'll be curious to see what they do with him here since if I'm reading the rules correctly, he is not a repeat offender thanks to that 3 year run.

 

That fact that he hasn't been suspended in 3 years pretty much tells you something's completely wrong.

 

 

Edited by Kristian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That fact that he hasn't been suspended in 3 years pretty much tells you something's completely wrong.

 

 

 

So a video of things he did more than three years ago is proof that he should have been suspended more in the past three years? Yeah, that makes sense. Let's face it, he has cleaned up his game significantly over the past three seasons. Just look at his penalty minutes, he has cut them in half. So do you want us all to believe that the refs and the league are looking the other way on this guy even though he built up quite the repuation prior to 2011? Of course not. The only play that was even questioned with him over the time frame was Eugene Melnyk and his army of forensic scientist saying they have proof that he intentionally cut Karlsson's achilles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So a video of things he did more than three years ago is proof that he should have been suspended more in the past three years? Yeah, that makes sense. Let's face it, he has cleaned up his game significantly over the past three seasons. Just look at his penalty minutes, he has cut them in half. So do you want us all to believe that the refs and the league are looking the other way on this guy even though he built up quite the repuation prior to 2011? Of course not. The only play that was even questioned with him over the time frame was Eugene Melnyk and his army of forensic scientist saying they have proof that he intentionally cut Karlsson's achilles.

 

No, he should've been out of the league way before, that's what's wrong with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is OLD. A NEW topic should be started unless there is a VERY SPECIFIC REASON to revive this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...