NAS was right on the McQuaid hit

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

    NAS was right on the McQuaid hit

    Gotta admit when I'm wrong, and I'll take McQuaid's own word on the Chimera hit over my own perception any day.

    NAS had it right, as it turns out:

    McQuaid assumed some of the responsibility for Chimera’s hit. McQuaid had tracked down a puck along the wall, then attempted to reverse the puck and turned just as Chimera connected with his hit.

    “It’s over and done with. You move on from it,’’ McQuaid said. “I probably didn’t help the situation with the way I kind of turned. He was coming in with a lot of speed and on a change. There wasn’t much of a holdup. I was reading him coming in at more of an angle than coming on straight down. Just move on.’’

    Now let's all hope Boychuk isn't as badly injured as it appeared last night, and will be ready for the first round and beyond.


     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from OatesCam. Show OatesCam's posts

    Re: NAS was right on the McQuaid hit

    Chimera charged in and hit him with speed. Penalty and ejection. For the last decade or two the league has kind of stopped calling charging. They need to start again to curb concussions. When you charge at someone like that, even if you stop skating, you're trying to deliver a hard, powerful hit that could potential hurt or injure. It should be a penalty. Where McQuaid takes blame is in getting injured. He should have braced himself and not turned. If he hadn't, the penalty probably wouldn't have been called and McQuaid would be OK. I enjoy big, reckless hits. I think players, for their own safety, should always be aware of what may be coming. But if you are going to throw those big hits, you should be aware that you might hurt someone and might get a penalty. Just like the Paile hit last night.
     
  3. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: NAS was right on the McQuaid hit

    In Response to Re: NAS was right on the McQuaid hit:
    [QUOTE]Chimera charged in and hit him with speed. Penalty and ejection. For the last decade or two the league has kind of stopped calling charging. They need to start again to curb concussions. When you charge at someone like that, even if you stop skating, you're trying to deliver a hard, powerful hit that could potential hurt or injure. It should be a penalty. Where McQuaid takes blame is in getting injured. He should have braced himself and not turned. If he hadn't, the penalty probably wouldn't have been called and McQuaid would be OK. I enjoy big, reckless hits. I think players, for their own safety, should always be aware of what may be coming. But if you are going to throw those big hits, you should be aware that you might hurt someone and might get a penalty. Just like the Paile hit last night.
    Posted by OatesCam[/QUOTE]

    Hard checks are NOT illegal, and they absolutely should not be punished as so. This is the NHL, not the TNWNTWL (Tuesday Night Women's No Touch Wine League).

    Yeah, heavy hits hurt.  Keep your dang head up.  Don't turn to face the boards when a train is coming.


     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Beezfan4life. Show Beezfan4life's posts

    Re: NAS was right on the McQuaid hit

    In response to "Re: NAS was right on the McQuaid hit": [QUOTE]In Response to Re: NAS was right on the McQuaid hit : Hard checks are NOT illegal, and they absolutely should not be punished as so. This is the NHL, not the TNWNTWL (Tuesday Night Women's No Touch Wine League). Yeah, heavy hits hurt.  Keep your dang head up.  Don't turn to face the boards when a train is coming. Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE] The refs got it right, it was charging. Why is that so difficult for you to realize that.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BsLegion. Show BsLegion's posts

    Re: NAS was right on the McQuaid hit

    In Response to Re: NAS was right on the McQuaid hit:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: NAS was right on the McQuaid hit : Hard checks are NOT illegal, and they absolutely should not be punished as so. This is the NHL, not the TNWNTWL (Tuesday Night Women's No Touch Wine League). Yeah, heavy hits hurt.  Keep your dang head up.  Don't turn to face the boards when a train is coming.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]

    So what did you think of Paille's hit ?

    I believe the ref got it wrong because of the speed of the play, hit. Saw skates off the ice and called it charging . On replay the skates only leave the ice after impact which is normal.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from orr4neely8. Show orr4neely8's posts

    Re: NAS was right on the McQuaid hit

    Hockey last time I checked was still a contact sport. I am not the ref just the fan who can agree or disagree with calls. I am not making any comments about body checks or cheap shots good or bad ones. Hockey is what it is! All sports have their good moments and bad moments. Players injuries will always happen it is unfortunate but realistic.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonBruinss. Show BostonBruinss's posts

    Re: NAS was right on the McQuaid hit

    In Response to Re: NAS was right on the McQuaid hit:
    [QUOTE]The big difference between the Chimera hit and the Paille hit last night was how one of Gregorys Daddys primo sycophants, Walkom calls a bogus major and a game, where as journeyman professional, Devorski makes the right call.
    Posted by null[/QUOTE]

     
    Moron
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from RickyHussle. Show RickyHussle's posts

    Re: NAS was right on the McQuaid hit

    Hockey is still a contact sport.  However, when making contact players are no longer allowed to deliver the maximum damage possible.  That is now considered an intent to injure.  When you see a guy in a vulnerable position, instead of steam rolling him, the checking player must take precautions to prevent injury.  Instead of putting your shoulder into a guy at 100 MPH, it appears they want players to use a body check to pin that player to the boards.  The purpose of the check is still fulfilled, in fact because the checker maintains greater control of his body, it could be argued it is a better hockey play.  Checking is in hockey so that you can impede a player's progress or limit his options.  There is also an intimidation factor, intimidation will have to suffer to protect the players. 

    I get that people are going to go in chat rooms and thump there chest, crying about the wussification of hockey and making comparisons to the TNWNTWL, but I spend more time thinking about the implications on the life of Marc Savard and his family along with many others.  These aren't the same beer drinking players of the 80's who hurt you with a green light hit.  These are machines of steel who end careers when they greenlight players.  Everything changes, and if you can't keep up with the times then a heavy price will be payed.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: NAS was right on the McQuaid hit

    In Response to Re: NAS was right on the McQuaid hit:
    [QUOTE]I get that people are going to go in chat rooms and thump there chest, crying about the wussification of hockey and making comparisons to the TNWNTWL, but I spend more time thinking about the implications on the life of Marc Savard and his family along with many others. 
    Posted by RickyHussle[/QUOTE]

    This was a cheapshot elbow to the head from behind.

    We're talking about heavy, clean checks.

    Can you point out many (or even any) concussions that were the result of a clean check?
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from BsLegion. Show BsLegion's posts

    Re: NAS was right on the McQuaid hit

    In Response to Re: NAS was right on the McQuaid hit:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: NAS was right on the McQuaid hit : This was a cheapshot elbow to the head from behind. We're talking about heavy, clean checks. Can you point out many (or even any) concussions that were the result of a clean check?
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]

    Primeau when a Flyer got hit straight in the chest from a Hab. Forgot his name , he was Russian. Although still doesn't prove his point.

    BTW you didn't answer my question above . 
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: NAS was right on the McQuaid hit

    In Response to Re: NAS was right on the McQuaid hit:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: NAS was right on the McQuaid hit : Primeau when a Flyer got hit straight in the chest from a Hab. Forgot his name , he was Russian. Although still doesn't prove his point. BTW you didn't answer my question above . 
    Posted by BsLegion[/QUOTE]

    If I remember the Paille hit correctly, he caught Niskanen on the nameplate/numbers.  Two minutes for boarding would have been my call.  Suggesting that Paille came from too far away or hit him too hard is so stupid.

    Primeau is a terrible example.  By the end of his career, he got concussions from 10 MPH winds.  I don't recall your Russian hitting him in the chest and giving him a concussion.

    Was it before this one:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qgdrf2dZku4


     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from BsLegion. Show BsLegion's posts

    Re: NAS was right on the McQuaid hit

    In Response to Re: NAS was right on the McQuaid hit:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: NAS was right on the McQuaid hit : If I remember the Paille hit correctly, he caught Niskanen on the nameplate/numbers.  Two minutes for boarding would have been my call.  Suggesting that Paille came from too far away or hit him too hard is so stupid. Primeau is a terrible example.  By the end of his career, he got concussions from 10 MPH winds.  I don't recall your Russian hitting him in the chest and giving him a concussion. Was it before this one:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qgdrf2dZku4
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]

    Okay, well I saw it differently. I saw Paille going shoulder to shoulder.
    That hit by the Hab was a pretty solid one, I was at the game. I get your point though.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from user_3957105. Show user_3957105's posts

    Re: NAS was right on the McQuaid hit

    In Response to Re: NAS was right on the McQuaid hit:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: NAS was right on the McQuaid hit : Primeau when a Flyer got hit straight in the chest from a Hab. Forgot his name , he was Russian. Although still doesn't prove his point. BTW you didn't answer my question above . 
    Posted by BsLegion[/QUOTE]

    Perezhogin. The same Russian that was suspended in the AHL for swinging his stick like a baseball bat and knocking out another player. Sweet boy he was.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from cad11. Show cad11's posts

    Re: NAS was right on the McQuaid hit

    In Response to Re: NAS was right on the McQuaid hit:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: NAS was right on the McQuaid hit : This was a cheapshot elbow to the head from behind. We're talking about heavy, clean checks. Can you point out many (or even any) concussions that were the result of a clean check?
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]

    I don't remember now -- so just asking. Was the Scott Stevens hit on Lindros deemed clean?
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: NAS was right on the McQuaid hit

    In Response to Re: NAS was right on the McQuaid hit:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: NAS was right on the McQuaid hit : I don't remember now -- so just asking. Was the Scott Stevens hit on Lindros deemed clean?
    Posted by cad11[/QUOTE]

    It was clean at the time, but it was a brutal headshot.  Those hits are not clean today, so they aren't the focus of this discussion.  People are suggesting that clean hard body checks are bad news and should be limited.  I disagree.
     

Share