headshot?

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

    headshot?

    if paille's hit was a "targeted head shot", then the hunwick hit was also.both recipients were crouched with their head AT shoulder kevel.  hunwick was merely following through with his check-remember(he finished high)? savvy's body position was his own fault-remember? so targeting the head makes no sense. salwada is not responsible for his body position?  it WAS a blind side hit, for THAT he should have been punished.  hit to the head is simply not accurate-blind side/ cheap shot is more like it. the nhl has a real issue here, i got news for you ,every hard check into the boards there is "intent to injure"-don't fool yourself. this issue is going to open a big ole' can of worms
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from CafardoSaysTradeBrady. Show CafardoSaysTradeBrady's posts

    Re: headshot?

    In Response to headshot?:
    if paille's hit was a "targeted head shot", then the hunwick hit was also.both recipients were crouched with their head AT shoulder kevel.  hunwick was merely following through with his check-remember(he finished high)? savvy's body position was his own fault-remember? so targeting the head makes no sense. salwada is not responsible for his body position?  it WAS a blind side hit, for THAT he should have been punished.  hit to the head is simply not accurate-blind side/ cheap shot is more like it. the nhl has a real issue here, i got news for you ,every hard check into the boards there is "intent to injure"-don't fool yourself. this issue is going to open a big ole' can of worms
    Posted by adkbeesfan


    The funny thing is it wasn't even "blind-side". It was purely "head down".

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from perrysound. Show perrysound's posts

    Re: headshot?

    In Response to Re: headshot?:
    In Response to headshot? : The funny thing is it wasn't even "blind-side". It was purely "head down".
    Posted by CafardoSaysTradeBrady


    Yes it was a blind side hit. It was the exact same as Cooke's only no elbow to the head. 

    I really don't think there was any intent to injure, other than a normal 'check'  that happens 40 to 50 times a game. But he did come into him at an angle that the player could not see him coming, and therefore not protect himself. That is what the league is trying to get rid of. Hopefully everyone learns from this and moves on. I too worry about where this is going as far as hitting and body contact goes. It just seems that every time a rule or change is put in place to address these issues, a more serious problem pops up. 

    Change the equipment, and fine the coaches when these hits occur. That will end it.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from mjbilli. Show mjbilli's posts

    Re: headshot?

    IMO todays players are more predatory.  They look for opportunities when an opposing player is unsuspecting (Crosby/Laich, Savard /Cooke, Havlat/Kronwall, Kariya/Stevens, Toews/Mitchell, Booth/Richards).  Sure it may take skill to time the hit so it falls within todays rules but is that a skill that the league wants to encourage/allow?  It seems to me those types of hits are cowardly.  Why not call them what they are?  Ask yourself if you would rather watch the likes of Laich and Cooke vs Crosby and Savard?  If the answer is the former than why would you want your children to play a sport that rewards the least skilled player by preying on the most gifted.  I realize hockey has been a sport of intimidation since its inception but allowing/glamorizing intent to injure is ridiculous.

    How would you legislate a cowardly hit? you got me.  Let the brain trust in the NHL front office figure that out.  Perhaps no rule is needed.  Just a change of culture or maybe a "code", like the hockey fight code.  You don't punch someone who is defenseless, don't check someone who is defenseless.

    Just my opinion.  Let the rants begin.

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

    Re: headshot?

    Hunwick's check was aided by the boards.  Paille's hit was from the full force of his actions.

    They are different.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: headshot?

    In Response to Re: headshot?:
    In Response to Re: headshot? : Yes it was a blind side hit. It was the exact same as Cooke's only no elbow to the head.  I really don't think there was any intent to injure, other than a normal 'check'  that happens 40 to 50 times a game. But he did come into him at an angle that the player could not see him coming, and therefore not protect himself. That is what the league is trying to get rid of. Hopefully everyone learns from this and moves on. I too worry about where this is going as far as hitting and body contact goes. It just seems that every time a rule or change is put in place to address these issues, a more serious problem pops up.  Change the equipment, and fine the coaches when these hits occur. That will end it.
    Posted by perrysound


    Big big, difference from the Cooke hit Perry.  Savard had dished the puck a full second, maybe more, before numbnuts came crashing in.  No comparison at all, Savard wasn't expecting anything.  In Pailles's case, the opposing player should have.
    This call is gonna create some problems.  Originally, the plan was to come down hard on anyone blind siding someone.  This was not a blindside hit.  It's easy to see, the NHL is on a crusade, and it's not sure what it's crusading against at this point.  Now players will be flopping all over the place anytime they get nailed, and everyone is gonna holler for suspensions.  Julian is right.  Players need to be more responsible, keep there heads up, and play with more respect. 
    Having said that, the league does need to send out a message that dirty hits won't be tolerated, and those situations that result in serious injury will carry an especially heavy penalty.
      Unfortunatley, they picked the wrong example.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share