zenryan Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Apr 19, 2014 -> 05:52 PM) There seems to be a lot of different opinions if that was a dirty hit or not. I'm interested to hear your guys' opinion. Big difference in a dirty hit and a bad hit that is deserving of the penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxfest Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 QUOTE (buhbuhburrrrlz @ Apr 19, 2014 -> 04:55 PM) 6 SECONDS LEFT R U KIDDING ME Hawks just cannot clear the zone both games so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 QUOTE (zenryan @ Apr 19, 2014 -> 04:58 PM) Big difference in a dirty hit and a bad hit that is deserving of the penalty. It was a penalty but not as bad as everyone acts like it is. Guy had his head down and got lit up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Could be up 2-0. Maybe down 0-2 instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 QUOTE (Brian @ Apr 19, 2014 -> 05:00 PM) Could be up 2-0. Maybe down 0-2 instead. As nice as it is to destroy Backes you just cannot take the risk there. That much power play time is murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buehrle>Wood Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 The announcers didn't even seem to think it was a penalty at first and now it's the most brutal hit ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 My first reaction was that it wasn't a penalty, but now with a better look at it I see that it's a penalty but I wouldn't call it "dirty." More like "you must penalize this so that players actively avoid this kind of hit in the future" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 (edited) QUOTE (Jake @ Apr 19, 2014 -> 05:06 PM) My first reaction was that it wasn't a penalty, but now with a better look at it I see that it's a penalty but I wouldn't call it "dirty." More like "you must penalize this so that players actively avoid this kind of hit in the future" I'm definitely not arguing with you as most hockey fans seem to agree with that, I'm just not exactly sure what Seabrook can do there. He clearly thinks Backes has the puck, he doesn't launch himself but unfortunately makes contact with Backes who is in a crouched position. I get that you don't want contact to the head but it almost seemed unavoidable there. Edited April 19, 2014 by Rowand44 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Apr 19, 2014 -> 05:10 PM) I'm definitely not arguing with you as most hockey fans seem to agree with that, I'm just not exactly sure what Seabrook can do there. He clearly thinks Backes has the puck, he doesn't launch himself but unfortunately makes contact with Backes who is in a crouched position. I get that you don't want contact to the head but it almost seemed unavoidable there. In a sport where hits are legal and checks are done so often, it's hard for me as a very casual fan to distinguish what is a penalty and what is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buehrle>Wood Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 They don't look too good early ot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 As I feared, I just don't think this team has it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Gotta win next two. That's it. Should have taken at least one of these. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord chas Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 (edited) This Hawks team is done. At least 2 game suspension for Seabrook Edited April 19, 2014 by lord chas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 QUOTE (lord chas @ Apr 19, 2014 -> 05:26 PM) This Hawks team is done. At least 2 game suspension for Seabrook The question is. Which series did you post this last year? Detroit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxfest Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 (edited) Really bad hole to dig out of Crawford needs to take some blame also. Edited April 19, 2014 by Soxfest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 We haven't played at home yet, but this still sucks. Easily could be 2-0 Hawks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniKrush Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 (edited) QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 19, 2014 -> 04:49 PM) Bad luck his head was that low. Shoulder, still on the ice. s***. Gotta be a little more aware. QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Apr 19, 2014 -> 04:52 PM) There seems to be a lot of different opinions if that was a dirty hit or not. I'm interested to hear your guys' opinion. QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 19, 2014 -> 04:59 PM) It was a penalty but not as bad as everyone acts like it is. Guy had his head down and got lit up. Hold on a minute there. Bad luck? Let's recap: 1) It's easy interference, as the puck is nowhere near him. 2) Principal point of contact is the head. Rule 48 to an absolute T here. 3) His feet may or may not have left the ice prior to the hit, but definitely after. As such, he was projecting upwards. So the only thing missing here is a clear jump. 4) For emphasis, because it's what matters - the principal point of contact was the head, and no it doesn't matter whether it was a shoulder instead of an elbow. Irrelevant. 5 and a game was the right call. Now he'll get suspended for 3ish games, which will also be the right call. Let's call a spade a spade here. Bickell with a stupid and dangerous penalty followed by Seabrook with one of the dumbest hits I've seen in a while out of a Blackhawk. He took a "free" shot at Backes and cost the team the game, possibly the series. Hope it was worth it. Edited April 19, 2014 by IlliniKrush Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Apr 19, 2014 -> 05:49 PM) Hold on a minute there. Bad luck? Let's recap: 1) It's easy interference, as the puck is nowhere near him. 2) Principal point of contact is the head. Rule 48 to an absolute T here. 3) His feet may or may not have left the ice prior to the hit, but definitely after. As such, he was projecting upwards. So the only thing missing here is a clear jump. 4) For emphasis, because it's what matters - the principal point of contact was the head, and no it doesn't matter whether it was a shoulder instead of an elbow. Irrelevant. 5 and a game was the right call. Now he'll get suspended for 3ish games, which will also be the right call. Let's call a spade a spade here. Bickell with a stupid and dangerous penalty followed by Seabrook with one of the dumbest hits I've seen in a while out of a Blackhawk. He took a "free" shot at Backes and cost the team the game, possibly the series. Hope it was worth it. Yes a head shot because Backes changed levels and dropped down to the shoulder level. Clearly a penalty. He's my least favorite player but I don't think it was nearly as bad as everyone makes it to be and shouldn't be a suspension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniKrush Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 19, 2014 -> 05:54 PM) Yes a head shot because Backes changed levels and dropped down to the shoulder level. Clearly a penalty. He's my least favorite player but I don't think it was nearly as bad as everyone makes it to be and shouldn't be a suspension. See, you basically make anything you say irrelevant as it's coming from a point of hate for Backes. Be objective. It was one hell of a dirty hit. Backes didn't drop down, he was at a normal level. Seabrook came up. He left his feet as contact happened. But, again, the main point in this whole thing...principal point of contact = head. Onus is on the guy giving the hit. I've seen plays like this reviewed for the past 2 years. What's hilarious is if this was say, Jackman on Toews, everyone would be going OMFG KILL HIM SUSPEND HIM 50 GAMES. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Apr 19, 2014 -> 06:03 PM) See, you basically make anything you say irrelevant as it's coming from a point of hate for Backes. Be objective. It was one hell of a dirty hit. Backes didn't drop down, he was at a normal level. Seabrook came up. He left his feet as contact happened. But, again, the main point in this whole thing...principal point of contact = head. Onus is on the guy giving the hit. I've seen plays like this reviewed for the past 2 years. What's hilarious is if this was say, Jackman on Toews, everyone would be going OMFG KILL HIM SUSPEND HIM 50 GAMES. I meant Seabrook. I detest him. Head shot should be a game. But he was still on his feet when he delivered a hit to the front of Backes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniKrush Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 19, 2014 -> 06:06 PM) I meant Seabrook. I detest him. Head shot should be a game. But he was still on his feet when he delivered a hit to the front of Backes. Gotcha. He'll probably get a game, I could see it up to 3 but unless I'm forgetting one, he hasn't been suspended before which helps. And no Shanny anymore. His feet were either up or barely on the ice as it was delivered, which is really splitting hairs at that point. They'll look at the direction of hit going up. I realize that's what people were looking at because Eddie O was being a homer and somehow not realizing what the hell just happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dasox24 Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 19, 2014 -> 05:54 PM) Yes a head shot because Backes changed levels and dropped down to the shoulder level. Clearly a penalty. He's my least favorite player but I don't think it was nearly as bad as everyone makes it to be and shouldn't be a suspension. I'm in agreement here. I know I've mentioned this before, but I'm a college lacrosse official so I have a bit of a unique perspective when it comes to refereeing a sport at a high level. Like someone else mentioned, you have to call it because of the contact to the head and the emphasis is to remove these types of hits from the game. However, I don't think it was Seabrook's intention to make head contact. Like you said Rock, Backes dropped down a bit. Still, it had to be called. I'm not sure a suspension is necessary, but I'm sure the NHL will give him one anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted April 19, 2014 Author Share Posted April 19, 2014 QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 19, 2014 -> 05:32 PM) The question is. Which series did you post this last year? Detroit? This isn't the same team as last year. Something is missing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 No one should defend Seabrook's moronic hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniKrush Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 QUOTE (dasox24 @ Apr 19, 2014 -> 06:11 PM) I'm in agreement here. I know I've mentioned this before, but I'm a college lacrosse official so I have a bit of a unique perspective when it comes to refereeing a sport at a high level. Like someone else mentioned, you have to call it because of the contact to the head and the emphasis is to remove these types of hits from the game. However, I don't think it was Seabrook's intention to make head contact. Like you said Rock, Backes dropped down a bit. Still, it had to be called. I'm not sure a suspension is necessary, but I'm sure the NHL will give him one anyway. Seabrook hit a sitting duck and had plenty of time to line it up. And he didn't even have the puck. This was all on him, and the absolute principal point of contact was the head in an upward motion. This has been an emphasis for 2 years now. Intent, at this point, doesn't matter as much as what actually happened. Plus, Backes could be out the series, who knows. That should, and will, play into it as well. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 19, 2014 -> 06:12 PM) This isn't the same team as last year. Something is missing. Ding ding ding. I'll root for them til they are down and out, but anyone watching knows this team isn't playing good hockey the past few months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts