IlliniKrush Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Mar 29, 2011 -> 05:11 PM) Ryan Johnson said he didn't think it was on purpose, and he isn't mad about it. But I don't believe for one second that the fact that Johnson didn't get injured didn't have everything to do w/ the ruling. Had Johnson been injured in miss the rest of the season, then Bertuzzi would be right there along w/ Cooke. Well it does factor into it... Edited March 29, 2011 by IlliniKrush Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 29, 2011 Author Share Posted March 29, 2011 QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Mar 29, 2011 -> 05:11 PM) Ryan Johnson said he didn't think it was on purpose, and he isn't mad about it. But I don't believe for one second that the fact that Johnson didn't get injured didn't have everything to do w/ the ruling. Had Johnson been injured in miss the rest of the season, then Bertuzzi would be right there along w/ Cooke. Which is complete crap. You shouldn't need to injure someone to get penalized for trying to injure someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 I hate eastern conference hockey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniKrush Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 29, 2011 -> 06:36 PM) Which is complete crap. You shouldn't need to injure someone to get penalized for trying to injure someone. He wasn't. That wasn't a Cooke style hit. He got a major and a game, which is what he deserved. But yes, injury/length of injury should have an affect on suspension length, and it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiliIrishHammock24 Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Mar 29, 2011 -> 06:27 PM) Well it does factor into it... Yeah...I know...that's why I said it....lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maggsmaggs Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Mar 29, 2011 -> 07:31 PM) He wasn't. That wasn't a Cooke style hit. He got a major and a game, which is what he deserved. But yes, injury/length of injury should have an affect on suspension length, and it does. Not sure if right or wrong, but when you get into punishing people on the basis of the injury of the other player, you start punishing the result of the action, not the action itself. And to me, I think the action is the most important thing granted many times that is difficult to discern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 30, 2011 Author Share Posted March 30, 2011 QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Mar 29, 2011 -> 07:31 PM) He wasn't. That wasn't a Cooke style hit. He got a major and a game, which is what he deserved. But yes, injury/length of injury should have an affect on suspension length, and it does. I don't think that makes a bit of sense. Why would you essentially punish bad luck more than intent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 What a stinker last night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniKrush Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Mar 29, 2011 -> 11:57 PM) Not sure if right or wrong, but when you get into punishing people on the basis of the injury of the other player, you start punishing the result of the action, not the action itself. And to me, I think the action is the most important thing granted many times that is difficult to discern. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 30, 2011 -> 08:38 AM) I don't think that makes a bit of sense. Why would you essentially punish bad luck more than intent? I'm not saying only the injury should be punished, it should be based on the act...but if there's an injury, it should be a more severe punishment. I'm not along the line of "however long that guy is out, you are out" suspensions but if the guy was injured, the act itself was definitely worse, and well there are consequences for your actions, luck or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Mar 30, 2011 -> 09:08 AM) I'm not saying only the injury should be punished, it should be based on the act...but if there's an injury, it should be a more severe punishment. I'm not along the line of "however long that guy is out, you are out" suspensions but if the guy was injured, the act itself was definitely worse, and well there are consequences for your actions, luck or not. I'd agree. That's kind of how the NHL has been rocking penalties for awhile now. I mean, a minor penalty is 2 minutes, but if said penalty causes the other player to bleed, no matter how weak it looked, it's a double-minor 4 minute deal. This seems similar in that regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Mar 30, 2011 -> 09:51 AM) I'd agree. That's kind of how the NHL has been rocking penalties for awhile now. I mean, a minor penalty is 2 minutes, but if said penalty causes the other player to bleed, no matter how weak it looked, it's a double-minor 4 minute deal. This seems similar in that regard. I feel like boarding penalties can be judged similarily. If the player hits the boards at a funny angle and appears to be really injured, you can bet on a 5 minute major. But if he hits the boards somewhat safely and is able to quickly walk away, then its just a normal 2 minuter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Controlled Chaos Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Mar 30, 2011 -> 09:08 AM) I'm not saying only the injury should be punished, it should be based on the act...but if there's an injury, it should be a more severe punishment. I'm not along the line of "however long that guy is out, you are out" suspensions but if the guy was injured, the act itself was definitely worse, and well there are consequences for your actions, luck or not. How long does one get for only inflicting a partially severed ear instead of a concussion? Apparently...nada. Ridiculous. I understand he was going for a hip check, but he left his feet and did it with his elbow up. In fact, not only is his elbow up, it moves in an uppercut motion to Johnson's head and his stick is parallel and about 4 feet off the ice. Pause the vid right at 39 seconds. If he does the exact same hit with his stick on the ice, he still plows him over with a vicious, but legal hit. It's not that hard for the NHL to figure out, but they are so god damn inconsistent and that's what drives people nuts.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 So Thornton was really upset at Hawks players "chirping" at him as he skated to the bench last night and he will "deal with it" next time he sees them. Maybe they thought you got some karma after taking out Hammer's knee huh you douche. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 QUOTE (RockRaines @ Mar 30, 2011 -> 05:31 PM) So Thornton was really upset at Hawks players "chirping" at him as he skated to the bench last night and he will "deal with it" next time he sees them. Maybe they thought you got some karma after taking out Hammer's knee huh you douche. John Scott says: "He said that? That's fine. He can say what he wants. He's going after some of our littlest guys on our team to start a fight. He's trying to challenge (Fernando) Pisani to a fight. What's that say about him? "He's Mr. Tough Guy and he's trying to challenge Pisani. If I'm in the lineup, he's more than welcome to come chirp at me. I'll kick the (bleep) out of him." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniKrush Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 Kane should stop chirping at bleeding/injured players...it's stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted April 1, 2011 Author Share Posted April 1, 2011 The Hawks are about the most passive team in the NHL. Teams are getting pissed at them? Ha! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Critic Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Mar 31, 2011 -> 01:46 PM) John Scott says: "He said that? That's fine. He can say what he wants. He's going after some of our littlest guys on our team to start a fight. He's trying to challenge (Fernando) Pisani to a fight. What's that say about him? "He's Mr. Tough Guy and he's trying to challenge Pisani. If I'm in the lineup, he's more than welcome to come chirp at me. I'll kick the (bleep) out of him." LOL Can't fight from the press box, oh useless one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSox05 Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 Dallas losing last night was nice. Now a Blackhawks win tonight and a Calgary loss would be awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Apr 1, 2011 -> 09:36 AM) Dallas losing last night was nice. Now a Blackhawks win tonight and a Calgary loss would be awesome. Dallas is in a bit of a tailspin and Calgary has played two more games, so the playoff chances are looking better. The 8 spot sets up a showdown with Vancouver, which I wouldn't be very confident about it. I know the Hawks have the mental edge and Luongo has been their b****, but these are different Canucks & Hawks teams, so it could be tough. Then again, anything can happen in the Stanley Cup playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawksfan61 Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Apr 1, 2011 -> 10:41 AM) Dallas is in a bit of a tailspin and Calgary has played two more games, so the playoff chances are looking better. The 8 spot sets up a showdown with Vancouver, which I wouldn't be very confident about it. I know the Hawks have the mental edge and Luongo has been their b****, but these are different Canucks & Hawks teams, so it could be tough. Then again, anything can happen in the Stanley Cup playoffs. I would much rather play Vancouver than Detroit in the first round. Vancouver is dealing with a lot of injury issues on the blueline and also lost Malhotra for the season. A Hawks Nucks matchup in the first round has the stink of upset all over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 QUOTE (hawksfan61 @ Apr 1, 2011 -> 10:19 AM) I would much rather play Vancouver than Detroit in the first round. Vancouver is dealing with a lot of injury issues on the blueline and also lost Malhotra for the season. A Hawks Nucks matchup in the first round has the stink of upset all over it. Hawks are 3-1 vs Wings this year... just saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 QUOTE (hawksfan61 @ Apr 1, 2011 -> 10:19 AM) I would much rather play Vancouver than Detroit in the first round. Vancouver is dealing with a lot of injury issues on the blueline and also lost Malhotra for the season. A Hawks Nucks matchup in the first round has the stink of upset all over it. I don't know, the Nucks are hot and have won 9 of 10. Detroit has some major issues in net. Howard is struggling and banged up, Osgood is old and injured, and the two guys behind them just gave up a 10 spot to the Blues. I guess we will see what happens the last two games of the regular season when they meet though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Controlled Chaos Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 Whew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawksfan61 Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Apr 1, 2011 -> 12:41 PM) Hawks are 3-1 vs Wings this year... just saying. Playoffs are a whole new ballgame, you know this. Would you rather play the charmin soft perennial choking Canucks or the veteran battle tested Red Wings? I know if it came to a game 7 I would much rather play against Vancouver and greasy Bob then the Wings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniKrush Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 This year, I'd rather play the Wings, though I'm not saying we'd beat either. Canucks have played the best hockey the entire year, call them chokers or whatever you want, I don't care. Just because it's the Canucks doesn't mean "oh well they can't beat the Hawks" or that they'll in any way be afraid to face them. This Hawks team isn't nearly the same, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts