2010-2011 NHL thread

[IlliniKrush]

I agree with most of this, however, if you don't think Torres came in trying to knock Seabrook's head clean off and into the 8th row, you're kidding yourself. That's where I'd be drawing the line, personally. Malicious intent.

I never said that. In fact, I think you missed the sentence where I said he never went for the puck.

 

I agree with every word. My first Facebook post after the play was "that wasn't an elbow".

I'll add that if someone in a Hawks jersey made that exact same hit on a Sedin, people would have been gushing about it and not one person would have called it a dirty hit. Not one.

Correct, which is why I try to look at things in an unbiased fashion, the only worthwhile way to do things.

[Controlled Chaos]

I know I'm probably in the minority because the hit happened to a Hawk, but looking at this unbiasedly I don't think it warranted a suspension. Interference? It certainly was, as Seabrook never touched the puck. But it was not an elbow at all, he didn't leave his feet, it wasn't from behind/side, and I don't believe he was targeting his head.(what?) He never went for the puck, which is troublesome, but if Seabrook did touch the puck it would have been a hard, but legal, hit. There is also more latitude given behind the net on hits than in other areas (NHL words, not mine). Just because a play "looks bad" live doesn't make it a suspension.

 

Let me add that Seabrook put himself in an awful position on the play and needs to take some responsibility to have his head up/have more awareness, especially behind the net. That contributed to the intensity of the hit.

 

I think the best look is here. I think someone can be unbiased even though it happened to their team. The intent to injure is there and that's all that matters. If the NHL want's to get serious here and I love I big hit as much as the next guy, but this is the s*** that needs to stop. I don't care if it's a shoulder or an elbow...if your intention is to come up right under someone's chin..you're out to injure. He's crouched down so he can explode upward. Watch this in full screen and pause it at 1:13. He is going right at Seabrooks head. He could have laid a devastating hit on Seabrook and knocked him back probably 2 feet on his ass, but instead he chose to squeeze in that space between seabs' head and the glass so he can hit his head. If you pause it at 1:15 you can see it is literally shoulder to chin. He doesn't even hit him with any other part of his body. He had him lined up so it wasn't a "speed of the game thing" he went in to knock his head off. I agree Seabs put himself in a bad spot and probably knew he was going to pay the price, but nobody should have to pay like that. This bulls*** where the injury determines the punishment is ludicrous as well. If #7 lays on the ice and gets taken off on a stretcher with a broken neck...Torres is suspended. It was as dirty a play as you get and considering Torres has pretty much been trying to injure players his entire career should factor in.

 

Edited April 18, 2011 by Controlled Chaos

[SoxFan1]

I never said that. In fact, I think you missed the sentence where I said he never went for the puck.

I should have prefaced by saying that I'm not accusing you of that, just stating my opinion of the masses. I didn't miss your point.

[chimpy2121]

Seabrook out tonight.

 

I'm curious to see what Kunitz is going to get for his elbow. It doesn't get much clearer than that.

 

 

[RockRaines]

Just let the Nucks close them out and call it a season.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

I agree with most of this, however, if you don't think Torres came in trying to knock Seabrook's head clean off and into the 8th row, you're kidding yourself. That's where I'd be drawing the line, personally. Malicious intent.

 

Bingo. I'm not a Hawks fan but that deserved a suspension. Just because it didn't violate the magical Rule 48 doesn't mean it was okay. There is a reason "intent to injure" is in the rulebook. The NHL needs to start enforcing the rules they have more consistently.

[southsider2k5]

Seabrook out tonight.

 

I'm curious to see what Kunitz is going to get for his elbow. It doesn't get much clearer than that.

 

Bolland is in.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

Seabrook out tonight.

 

I'm curious to see what Kunitz is going to get for his elbow. It doesn't get much clearer than that.

 

He should get two games. I'm surprised Mario isn't up in arms over this too!

 

Downie shouldn't get any but probably will get a game because he's Steve Downie

[IlliniKrush]

Bingo. I'm not a Hawks fan but that deserved a suspension. Just because it didn't violate the magical Rule 48 doesn't mean it was okay. There is a reason "intent to injure" is in the rulebook. The NHL needs to start enforcing the rules they have more consistently.

Actually, a big part of the no suspension is because it didn't violate rule 48. Plus he didn't leave his feet. Or Elbow. Or charge. The only thing wrong was that Seabrook didn't have the puck = interference.

 

Headshots are not banned. Lateral, blind side head shots are. If you get a shoulder to the head, too bad. They aren't taking hitting out of hockey.

 

I don't buy the "intent to injure" thing since all of his actions were clean minus interference. He lined a guy up for a hard hit, and Seabrook never quite reached the puck.

[Steve9347]

Who all is going to the funeral tonight?

[ChiSox_Sonix]

Actually, a big part of the no suspension is because it didn't violate rule 48. Plus he didn't leave his feet. Or Elbow. Or charge. The only thing wrong was that Seabrook didn't have the puck = interference.

 

Headshots are not banned. Lateral, blind side head shots are. If you get a shoulder to the head, too bad. They aren't taking hitting out of hockey.

 

I don't buy the "intent to injure" thing since all of his actions were clean minus interference. He lined a guy up for a hard hit, and Seabrook never quite reached the puck.

 

At the very least it should have been a match penalty for interference. You simply can not allow that kind of play. Granted, Seabrook should have had his head up, you are taught that from an early age. And yes, if he had the puck it's just a devastating but legal play. I agree that he didn't leave his feet, or lead with an elbow and he stopped his stride so it was not charging. But, those are not pre-requisites for a suspendable play. Especially since Torres isn't exactly known for clean play, it's not like you can say oh this was a one time thing. No, this is a player that needs to be toned down a bit.

[LittleHurt05]

Who all is going to the funeral tonight?

 

I'll be there again tonight. Last hockey game to attend til October, maybe we can get one playoff win this season?

 

I think Scott may take Seabrook's spot on the blue line. I usually don't root for the meathead stuff, but Scott better f***ing find Torres and beat the s*** out of him. He's been pretty much worthless for anything but fighting this season anyway, might as well get one last brawl out of him. You aren't gonna miss him out on the ice and you are already down 3-0 to a better team anyway.

[IlliniKrush]

At the very least it should have been a match penalty for interference. You simply can not allow that kind of play. Granted, Seabrook should have had his head up, you are taught that from an early age. And yes, if he had the puck it's just a devastating but legal play. I agree that he didn't leave his feet, or lead with an elbow and he stopped his stride so it was not charging. But, those are not pre-requisites for a suspendable play. Especially since Torres isn't exactly known for clean play, it's not like you can say oh this was a one time thing. No, this is a player that needs to be toned down a bit.

Match penalty? Hardly. Again, nothing was illegal with the hit itself except the puck not touched. If he left his feet, threw an elbow, etc, I could see a major for inteference. Why can't you allow that kind of play? Too hard of a check? Hard, devastating hits sometimes happen in hockey, even ones that might cause injury. That doesn't make them all illegal or lead to suspensions.

 

And yes, those are exactly some things that factor into a suspendable play. You can't just say "it's Torres, he's been suspended before, so he should just be suspended again if any kind of hit looks violent."

[Controlled Chaos]

At the very least it should have been a match penalty for interference. You simply can not allow that kind of play. Granted, Seabrook should have had his head up, you are taught that from an early age. And yes, if he had the puck it's just a devastating but legal play. I agree that he didn't leave his feet, or lead with an elbow and he stopped his stride so it was not charging. But, those are not pre-requisites for a suspendable play. Especially since Torres isn't exactly known for clean play, it's not like you can say oh this was a one time thing. No, this is a player that needs to be toned down a bit.

A couple of great reads on it.

 

http://www.windsorstar.com/sports/playing+...9607/story.html

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2011/04/19/ker...-get-serious-2/

 

The only thing he didn't violate in Rule 48 is some hidden addendum that says you can hit a guy in the head behind the net. If you find that rule here, please let me know. Either way it's a ridiculous exception. If that hit occurs 4 feet to the left or right from where it occurred, then Rule 48 can be enforced??

 

There's also Rule 21.1 Match Penalty - A match penalty involves the suspension of a player for the balance of the game and the offender shall be ordered to the dressing room immediately.

A match penalty shall be imposed on any player who deliberately attempts to injure or who deliberately injures an opponent in any manner.

 

He could have blasted him with a legal hit and chose to not blast him, but cut him off so he can just hit his head. That is clear to anyone that watches that play.

 

[IlliniKrush]

However, that wasn't a lateral or blind side hit. They didn't exactly need the loop hole, and that type of hit isn't the reason rule 48 was implemented. Under the current rules, not all head shots are illegal. If you want to make the argument that you should change the rules, fine. But as your 2nd article stated, the correct ruling was made based upon the rules.

 

That's not a match penalty. Again, if the puck was there, it was a legal hit. You are going to give him a match penalty for a legal hit?

 

I also don't agree that he targeted the head and that was it. You've got two guys skating in on an angle, he goes for the hit, and Seabrook's route/body position exposed his head at the time of the hit. They weren't skating in a straight line at each other, allowing Torres to sit there and line that up. If Torres wanted to hurt him, he would have done something much worse. Torres stopped his skating stride and glided on the route he was on and hit him with his shoulder. Good play if Seabrook had touched the puck, interference since it wasn't.

Edited April 19, 2011 by IlliniKrush

[ChiSox_Sonix]

However, that wasn't a lateral or blind side hit. They didn't exactly need the loop hole, and that type of hit isn't the reason rule 48 was implemented. Under the current rules, not all head shots are illegal. If you want to make the argument that you should change the rules, fine. But as your 2nd article stated, the correct ruling was made based upon the rules.

 

That's not a match penalty. Again, if the puck was there, it was a legal hit. You are going to give him a match penalty for a legal hit?

 

I also don't agree that he targeted the head and that was it. You've got two guys skating in on an angle, he goes for the hit, and Seabrook's route/body position exposed his head at the time of the hit. They weren't skating in a straight line at each other, allowing Torres to sit there and line that up. If Torres wanted to hurt him, he would have done something much worse. Torres stopped his skating stride and glided on the route he was on and hit him with his shoulder. Good play if Seabrook had touched the puck, interference since it wasn't.

 

I feel like you're not making a big enough issue of that fact though. You keep saying if the puck was there it was legal. Well, it wasn't there. Hence why there was a penalty. If you're going to deliver a hit like that you had better make sure that puck is there. The fact that it wasn't really does make it more dangerous. A player with the puck is always more aware of his surroundings. A player without the puck just is not planning on getting blown up like that. Yes, his head should have been up and he put himself in a bad spot, but the puck was not there and that's what makes the hit Torres laid on him a bad one. Mistake or not, just getting a minor for interference is getting off easy. And yes, history should play a part. I love big hits, checking, fighting etc...I never want to see the NHL emulate the Euro game. But that being said, players who play recklessly like him need to be reigned in a little bit.

 

As for the other suspensions, Downie and Kunitz both got a game a piece. Just further proof the NHL disciplinary committee's head are so far up their collective asses they just don;t know what to do. Kunitz should have had a minimum two games. Equating what he did to Downie's hit is a joke.

[IlliniKrush]

I don't think I need to make a bigger deal of puck possession. Seabrook was reaching for the puck and was going to touch it very soon. Whether he touched it or didn't touch it, the result would have been the same. For all intents and purposes, the puck was indeed "there." Seabrook had his head down looking for the puck, and the play would have been as violent with or without the touching of the puck. He would not have been more aware if his stick blade somehow contacted the puck already. It's not like this was a random run at a guy with the puck nowhere in the vicinity.

 

Since it wasn't quite touched yet...interference. The fact that the puck just barely wasn't touched isn't what you look at for the suspension here. It's the actual mechanics of the guy delivering the hit.

[Controlled Chaos]

However, that wasn't a lateral or blind side hit. They didn't exactly need the loop hole, and that type of hit isn't the reason rule 48 was implemented. Under the current rules, not all head shots are illegal. If you want to make the argument that you should change the rules, fine. But as your 2nd article stated, the correct ruling was made based upon the rules.

 

That's not a match penalty. Again, if the puck was there, it was a legal hit. You are going to give him a match penalty for a legal hit?

 

I also don't agree that he targeted the head and that was it. You've got two guys skating in on an angle, he goes for the hit, and Seabrook's route/body position exposed his head at the time of the hit. They weren't skating in a straight line at each other, allowing Torres to sit there and line that up. If Torres wanted to hurt him, he would have done something much worse. Torres stopped his skating stride and glided on the route he was on and hit him with his shoulder. Good play if Seabrook had touched the puck, interference since it wasn't.

That is what I'm doing. I'm talking about if the NHL wants to be serious about protecting players from concussions or major injury then that type of hit, without a doubt, should be included.

 

We'll agree to disagree on the targeting head thing. I have watched that video over and over pausing it at different times and there is no way I can be slightly swayed that he wasn't directly targeting his head. He had plenty of time and space to totally level Seabrook with a hard clean hit...instead he avoided the body and went for the head. I don't know how you can see it any different or what he could have done worse. It is a dirty, totally unnecessary play. It would have been just as vicious and clean if he plowed into his body and ran him over, minus the chance for a broken neck.

 

This has nothing to do with him being a Blackhawk....it has to do with what hockey. What about that hit is a hockey play? I love a good hit when a guy has his head down...run his ass over...I just think drilling him in the head is more about trying to injury a guy then flattening him.

[IlliniKrush]

Well this started as an argument about suspension or no suspension, so that's what I was arguing based on the current rules. Maybe they need to look at all head shots - but that's really hard to do, because some "clean" checks end up with the guy with the puck low, and a clean shoulder to the head. It's tough to just say all head shots are banned, because sometimes they just happen, and the guy delivering the hit didn't do anything wrong. It's not like the NFL, where guys can somewhat control leading with their head.

 

No matter where you try to check a guy, sometimes it doesn't turn out to be that spot. Sometimes you get his shoulder, sometimes back, sometimes his head, sometimes you miss completely and eat some glass. I don't agree with the constant pausing of the video, because that's now how it works in real life when trying to deliver a check, like how I said they both came in on angles to begin with, and Torres never changed his path from far out. If Seabrook had a slightly wider path, it's more of a full body check and you might not have the head contact. Or if Seabrook isn't bent over as much, the shoulder doesn't hit his head. I mean, his head is right above his chest, so even if he was trying to line him up "perfectly" for a hard hit, that was the result. He didn't extend anything to go at his head.

 

[Controlled Chaos]

Bolland baby!! Needed this dude. What a difference.

[Steve9347]

Bolland baby!! Needed this dude. What a difference.

He's key.

[SoxFanForever]

Been waiting for this effort all series (or season).

[southsider2k5]

Wow. This would have been nice, I don't know, like all year long? I wonder if this is enough to rattle Vancouver?

[Rowand44]

Wow. This would have been nice, I don't know, like all year long? I wonder if this is enough to rattle Vancouver?

If only they could have broken through with that 1 extra goal in game 2 or 3 but I guess that's what will happen when you're the inferior team. I don't think this game alone will rattle Vancouver but if the Hawks can take game 5, some doubt might start to creep into their minds, going back to the UC, anything can happen in a game 7, yada yada yada.

[IlliniKrush]

Game 5 is the absolute hardest to take as the lower seed down 3-0. Somehow win Thursday, and the series is on.