Chimera on McQuaid

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Chimera on McQuaid

    In Response to Re: Chimera on McQuaid:
    In Response to Re: Chimera on McQuaid : I've never seen Lucic pick up steam from the blue line to hit a guy behind the net !  That's the difference. Posted by BobbyOrrAlumni


    And Chimera had steam coming off him. I would freely admit it was McQuaid's fault if it was an open ice hit, like Boychuk getting crushed, but Adam was against the boards protecting the puck and Choo Choo Chimera S___ knew it.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Chimera on McQuaid

    In Response to Re: Chimera on McQuaid:
    Bottom line on the hit, you need to be in control of your body and expect that people will turn to face the boards. Every player in the league leaves themself in this vunerable position since it is illegal to hit a guy in the numbers. This leads to guys turning to face the boards all the time. Guys that go for a check like this need to realize that this is going to happen 50% of the time and they need to be in control of themselves so they can pull up if a guy like McQuaid turns at the last second. I put the fault at 1/3rd for each - third for Chimera for charging, third for McQuaid for turning, and a third for the NHL for the flawed boarding rule that makes players put themselves in a more vunerable position. No suspension or fine deserved.
    Posted by nrguy



    I'll buy that
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: Chimera on McQuaid

    In Response to Re: Chimera on McQuaid:
    In Response to Re: Chimera on McQuaid : Since when do hockey players or hockey fans want big hits to be limited? You want a guy chasing the puck carrier to try to be less punishing?  Watch soccer.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot
    Every time a star players career is curtailed or destroyed.

    The number of serious injuries are alarming in the sport. Lots of reasons to try and contain that. I for one would like to see Seguin play for many years by example and not become victim to a multiple concussion syndrome cutting short his career.

    Now Jack Edwards not surprising went over the top about the hit. But the officials on the ice saw it as egregious enough to call a major and a game misconduct. 
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Chimera on McQuaid

    In Response to Re: Chimera on McQuaid:
    In Response to Re: Chimera on McQuaid : Looked to me as if Chimera was coming into put a shoulder on shoulder check on MacQuaid who turned at the last second. Chimeras' feet were not moving, nor did he leave them, it looked like there was no intent other than a hockey play. 3 years ago this isnt even a penalty, today it's a charging, a game and up for review with Shanny..He knew Chimera was coming, which is why he turned, to try and avoid him.
    Posted by kelvana33


    Thanks, Kel.  At least someone around here was with me watching WITHOUT black and gold glasses.

    This post sure did put a stop to the fanboys  crying because one of their guys did something stupid and got smoked for it.

    I cannot believe someone would actually suggest that the attacking player should have held up to limit the heaviness of the hit.

    GO PLAY SOCCER!  THIS IS HOCKEY!
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from hangnail. Show hangnail's posts

    Re: Chimera on McQuaid

    Read 'em & weep:

    Charging shall mean the actions of a player who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner. A “charge” may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Chimera on McQuaid

    In Response to Re: Chimera on McQuaid:
    Read 'em & weep: Charging shall mean the actions of a player who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner. A “charge” may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice.
    Posted by hangnail


    It is certainly subjective.  There are 20 checks every night that are violent due to a distance traveled.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from hangnail. Show hangnail's posts

    Re: Chimera on McQuaid

    True...but he took 14 strides, that was half the rink!

    Wasn't the old benchmark more than 3 strides?  I haven't heard anyone talk about this for a while, not sure if that's still the guideline or not.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from dbg1. Show dbg1's posts

    Re: Chimera on McQuaid

    NAS..i seem to remember that Ferrence was suspended for exactly the same thing a little while back.  If the rolls were reversed and Lucic, or God forbid Marchand made the exact same charge against one of of the Caps players, then everyone would be screaming that the Bruins are headhunters and our player would be looking at a 3-5 game suspension.  

    I would not mind it not being a suspendable call if Shanahan was consistent.  It seems to me that he is going out of his way and showing a bias agains the bruins in order to prove that he is not showing favoritism to the Bruins.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: Chimera on McQuaid

    In Response to Re: Chimera on McQuaid:
    NAS..i seem to remember that Ferrence was suspended for exactly the same thing a little while back.  If the rolls were reversed and Lucic, or God forbid Marchand made the exact same charge against one of of the Caps players, then everyone would be screaming that the Bruins are headhunters and our player would be looking at a 3-5 game suspension.   I would not mind it not being a suspendable call if Shanahan was consistent.  It seems to me that he is going out of his way and showing a bias agains the bruins in order to prove that he is not showing favoritism to the Bruins.
    Posted by dbg1
    You hit the nail on the head with this one. It was a charge,Chimera got the major and game, case closed, but boy oh boy, if it was Marchand or Lucic, people would be calling for 10 games or more.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Neecic. Show Neecic's posts

    Re: Chimera on McQuaid

    Start skating in a beeline from the redline and start "coasting" at the goal line is a charge,  who hits without coasting for a bit?  I'm trying to picture a guy body checking while skating and i cant.

    it was a charge, and it was compounded by a poor decision by Mcquaid.

    My main problem with this play is like it or not big/questionable hits typically result in a response/fight.  I know there were small Bruins on the ice but it bothered me seeing possibly the most protective Bruin lying on the ice and no response.  If that had been mcquaids teammate he would be icing his knuckles after.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Chimera on McQuaid

    In Response to Re: Chimera on McQuaid:
    True...but he took 14 strides, that was half the rink! Wasn't the old benchmark more than 3 strides?  I haven't heard anyone talk about this for a while, not sure if that's still the guideline or not.
    Posted by hangnail


    He skated hard to the puck.  What else is he supposed to do? 
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from hangnail. Show hangnail's posts

    Re: Chimera on McQuaid

    In Response to Re: Chimera on McQuaid:
    In Response to Re: Chimera on McQuaid : He skated hard to the puck.  What else is he supposed to do? 
    Posted by Not-A-Shot


    A player who takes 14 strides should try to avoid contact, or he will get a charging penalty and possibly injure his opponent.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Neecic. Show Neecic's posts

    Re: Chimera on McQuaid

    In Response to Re: Chimera on McQuaid:
    In Response to Re: Chimera on McQuaid : He skated hard to the puck.  What else is he supposed to do? 
    Posted by Not-A-Shot


    I'm curious to know if you are disputing that THIS is charging or challenging the charging penalty as something that should be eliminated?
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Chimera on McQuaid

    In Response to Re: Chimera on McQuaid:
    In Response to Re: Chimera on McQuaid : I'm curious to know if you are disputing that THIS is charging or challenging the charging penalty as something that should be eliminated?
    Posted by Neecic


    I dislike subjective penalties.  Could be/couldn't be.  It's up to the ref.

    Here's something to think about:

    If McQuaid hadn't stupidly turned to face the glass and this was a thunderous shoulder to shoulder check in which McQuaid was knocked down but popped right back up, would it still be charging?

    "42.1 Charging - A minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player who skates or jumps into, or charges an opponent in any manner."

    Truthfully, the definition is terrible.  First, you can't use a word to define a word.  Also, in proper English, you can remove the "or jumps into" and the "or charges" and the sentence should still read properly.  Therefore, a minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player who skates an opponent in any manner.

    How does a player skate another player?

    "Charging shall mean the actions of a player who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner. A “charge” may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice."

    The "distance traveled" is not defined.  Is it 10 feet?  Is it 10 strides?  Does it have to be in a straight line? 

    Let's say Ovechkin comes off the bench with Zanon (I almost wrote Zombo LOL) behind the net.  As Ovechkin gets a head of steam and starts around the net, Zanon takes off up the right side.  Ovechkin catches Zanon and cracks him against the glass right before the bench. He certainly would have traveled quite a distance.  It is also a violent check because Ovechiin hits like a truck.  The check is into the boards.   So we have distance, violence and boards.

    Is that charging or is it hockey?

    It is flawed from beginning to end.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Chimera on McQuaid

    In Response to Re: Chimera on McQuaid:
    In Response to Re: Chimera on McQuaid : A player who takes 14 strides should try to avoid contact, or he will get a charging penalty and possibly injure his opponent.
    Posted by hangnail


    He was skating to get to the puck!  It's not like he tracked a guy without the puck.  McQuaid had the puck.  Chimera was on the forecheck.  McQuaid was against the board.  That's a green light in the game of hockey, not a yellow light to proceed with caution.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from jeffory. Show jeffory's posts

    Re: Chimera on McQuaid

    Now a player must prepare himself for a charge rather than worry about the puck. If we keep the concusions coming, we won't have to worry about hockey. there won't be any player left. Marchant got 5 game suspension for a lot less. You can have hard hitting within the rules. A sixteen step charge is uncalled for and detrimental to the sport. What is the difference which way he turns. A sixteen step full speed charge is looking for injury!!!
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from hangnail. Show hangnail's posts

    Re: Chimera on McQuaid

    In Response to Re: Chimera on McQuaid:
    In Response to Re: Chimera on McQuaid : He was skating to get to the puck!  It's not like he tracked a guy without the puck.  McQuaid had the puck.  Chimera was on the forecheck.  McQuaid was against the board.  That's a green light in the game of hockey, not a yellow light to proceed with caution.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot


    Looked to me like getting the puck was a secondary goal.   The check was his primary goal and I'm OK with that - as long as he's not charging, boarding, elbowing, tripping, hooking, kneeing or slew footing.  He didn't play by the rules so he got a penalty.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: Chimera on McQuaid

    In Response to Re: Chimera on McQuaid:
    In Response to Re: Chimera on McQuaid : Looked to me like getting the puck was a secondary goal.   The check was his primary goal and I'm OK with that - as long as he's not charging, boarding, elbowing, tripping, hooking, kneeing or slew footing.  He didn't play by the rules so he got a penalty.
    Posted by hangnail

    Nas says Chimera was skating hard to get the puck, i disagree, and agree with this. Getting the puck was the furthest thing from his mind.As far as coasting, Chimera had already built up quite a head of steam, enough to warrant a charge.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Chimera on McQuaid

    In Response to Re: Chimera on McQuaid:
    In Response to Re: Chimera on McQuaid : Nas says Chimera was skating hard to get the puck, i disagree, and agree with this. Getting the puck was the furthest thing from his mind.As far as coasting, Chimera had already built up quite a head of steam, enough to warrant a charge.
    Posted by 50belowzero


    If he cranks McQuaid without McQuaid stupidly turning to the boards, what's the end result?  Free puck.


     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: Chimera on McQuaid

    In Response to Re: Chimera on McQuaid:
    In Response to Re: Chimera on McQuaid : If he cranks McQuaid without McQuaid stupidly turning to the boards, what's the end result?  Free puck.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot

    If McQuaid doesn't turn into the boards and continues around the net with the puck maybe Chimera doesn't hit him and the play goes back up the ice, thus the only way that Chimera  can get the puck is by taking it from McQuaid as he turned. Instead, Chimera drilled him which i think was his only intent,not get the puck. I'll never know what Chimera was thinking anyway so its all,woulda,coulda,shoulda.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: Chimera on McQuaid

    So let me get this correctly, McQuaid is responsible for another player "chargin" into him because he made himself vulnerable.  Got to love the outcome of the Shannigans rulings this year (predicted earlier in the year) , there is more to come as the rules are defined more and more so in the next few years.  Thus NAS you are a tool, so when does the player not know that he is going to hit a player to cause injury, and when does the player know like DrCC's quote know when he is going to be hit maybe for a penalty.  There is no real definitive answer for a ref on the ice!  
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Neecic. Show Neecic's posts

    Re: Chimera on McQuaid

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhTPmIhylcA

    good thing seabrook didnt turn towards the boards, coulda got hurt.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Chimera on McQuaid

    I actually just youtubed it, and if you break it down, Chimera isnt skating or gliding right before contact, he is actually in the process of stopping. I knew I saw snow.

    Anyways, hope McQuaid is alright.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from PAULICAS1975. Show PAULICAS1975's posts

    Re: Chimera on McQuaid

    I understand McQuaid might have put himself in that position to get hit like he did. At the same time Hockey players should "KNOW" by now, that the NHL does NOT want these types of hits. Not going to say what Chimera did was wrong. Just saying that maybe Chimera could have pulled up abit and ot have hit him like he did. I think it was a clean hit. Just that the way this year has been going i guess i am guetting confused with the way Shanahan calls each similar hit. Chimera no suspension but other players have been suspended, like Ference early in the year. Shanahan needs to be more consistent, i believe.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share