Pacioretty

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

    Re: Pacioretty

    Nada for Pacioretty. 

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Pacioretty

    Wow.  The league keeps the Montreal favoritism theory alive and well.

    I can't stand Tortorella, but his question about why Patches jumps in the air to deliver the hit is absolutely relevant.  It's why the guy's face goes into the boards.

    BS from Shanny.  I hope the Rangers pound that guy next meeting.

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

    Re: Pacioretty

    Here's a link.  The hit that only got 2mins boarding whne 98% of time fetches 4mins or 5mins when a player is just bleeding and/or hurt.

    Repeat offender or not also in this case doesn't stand.

    http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/blog/eye-on-hockey/21755890/john-tortorella-not-happy-with-max-pacioretty-hit-on-ryan-mcdonagh

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from NeelyOrrBourque. Show NeelyOrrBourque's posts

    Re: Pacioretty

    In response to RichHillOntario's comment:

    In response to NeelyOrrBourque's comment:

     

    In response to RichHillOntario's comment:

     

    We know what the outrage would be if it were a Hab who was hit and injured in exactly the same manner as Pacioretty delivered.  Perhaps the Gazette will suggest it was McDonough who was at fault for being in the way of the on-rushing Pacioretty. 

     



    Yea I wonder when Air Canada & VIA Rail will be threatening to pull their sponsership.

     

     




    Nite, that will only happen on the recommendation of the R. C. M. P. who will be sure to investigate if Pacioretty rightly sits.

     



    Now, now...Don't talk about police officers or militry personal please? They're the true hero's of our lives. Except Shupe!! He's a bum! 

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from zamboni24. Show zamboni24's posts

    Re: Pacioretty

    In response to BsLegion's comment:

    Nada for Pacioretty. 



    Why are many of us just -- not surprised

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from xdrive. Show xdrive's posts

    Re: Pacioretty

    Typical spoiled rich kid ....EFF him

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

    Re: Pacioretty

    In response to NeelyOrrBourque's comment:

     

    In response to RichHillOntario's comment:

     

    In response to NeelyOrrBourque's comment:

     

    In response to RichHillOntario's comment:

     

    We know what the outrage would be if it were a Hab who was hit and injured in exactly the same manner as Pacioretty delivered.  Perhaps the Gazette will suggest it was McDonough who was at fault for being in the way of the on-rushing Pacioretty. 

     



    Yea I wonder when Air Canada & VIA Rail will be threatening to pull their sponsership.

     

     




    Nite, that will only happen on the recommendation of the R. C. M. P. who will be sure to investigate if Pacioretty rightly sits.

     

     



    Now, now...Don't talk about police officers or militry personal please? They're the true hero's of our lives. Except Shupe!! He's a bum! 

     

     




     

    Nite,

    I wasn't moking the police or military.  Must have read like it.  I was jokingly making reference to the extent Hab fans sometimes appear to want to extend themselves when they feel one of their players has been dishonoured. 

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Dave24. Show Dave24's posts

    Re: Pacioretty

    Makes me think of the Shanaban video on the Marchand-Salo hit, where he made sure to point to an earlier play making Marchand frustrated and led to the reviewed hit. Seems to be relevant for MaxiPac too.

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

    Re: Pacioretty

    In response to RichHillOntario's comment:

    In response to NeelyOrrBourque's comment:

     

    In response to RichHillOntario's comment:

     

    In response to NeelyOrrBourque's comment:

     

    In response to RichHillOntario's comment:

     

    We know what the outrage would be if it were a Hab who was hit and injured in exactly the same manner as Pacioretty delivered.  Perhaps the Gazette will suggest it was McDonough who was at fault for being in the way of the on-rushing Pacioretty. 

     



    Yea I wonder when Air Canada & VIA Rail will be threatening to pull their sponsership.

     

     




    Nite, that will only happen on the recommendation of the R. C. M. P. who will be sure to investigate if Pacioretty rightly sits.

     

     



    Now, now...Don't talk about police officers or militry personal please? They're the true hero's of our lives. Except Shupe!! He's a bum! 

     

     




     

    Nite,

    I wasn't moking the police or military.  Must have read like it.  I was jokingly making reference to the extent Hab fans sometimes appear to want to extend themselves when they feel one of their players has been dishonoured. 



    Oh Ok got it! Sorry for the misunderstanding on my part bro.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Davinator. Show Davinator's posts

    Re: Pacioretty

    This is Pat Hickey's Montreal Gazette article from yesterday after the league handed down its ruling... http://www.montrealgazette.com/sports/hockey/montreal-canadiens/Montreal+Canadiens+against+Rangers/8009639/story.html

    He leads off his Game Summary with the news that Max will be in the lineup against Ottawa, and relays Tortorella questioning of the call and mentions the fact that there is a photo that shows MP leaving his feet to make the hit.

    But other than that - no 'opinion' offered whether he thought the ruling was just or not(perhaps his silence speaks volumes) and no mention of the irony that MP was on the offenders end of the play. He didn't address that MP was lucky to get away with it twice...first in the game (2min) and secondly in front of Shanahan.

    Putz.

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

    Re: Pacioretty

    In response to Davinator's comment:

    This is Pat Hickey's Montreal Gazette article from yesterday after the league handed down its ruling... http://www.montrealgazette.com/sports/hockey/montreal-canadiens/Montreal+Canadiens+against+Rangers/8009639/story.html

    He leads off his Game Summary with the news that Max will be in the lineup against Ottawa, and relays Tortorella questioning of the call and mentions the fact that there is a photo that shows MP leaving his feet to make the hit.

    But other than that - no 'opinion' offered whether he thought the ruling was just or not(perhaps his silence speaks volumes) and no mention of the irony that MP was on the offenders end of the play. He didn't address that MP was lucky to get away with it twice...first in the game (2min) and secondly in front of Shanahan.

    Putz.



    +10 !

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Pacioretty

    The ruling continues to surprise me the more I read about it and re-watch it.  I stuck up for Taylor Hall last week because I thought his hit was more likely to be the result of a mistake -- trying line a guy up for an open ice hit, missing him mostly, and then clipping the knees.  It looked accidental to me.

    The hit by Patches looks the opposite in terms of intent.  Maybe its not as dangerous as Hall's hit, but Patches appears to do everything he can to slam McDonough's upper body into the glass with a hit from behind.  He had time to see him, he hits him from the back, and he launches upward (into the air) to make the hit higher than it needs to be.  The result is McDonagh's face  going directly into the glass, and he comes up bloody.

    Seems like everything the league is trying to discourage.  It makes no sense to pass on this.  And, Patches is a repeat offender, which seemed to be of great importance in some past suspensions.  Still no consistency.

    B.S.

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

    Re: Pacioretty

     

    I'm just glad he didn't run a Bruin and McD wasn't hurt that bad.  I think you could argue about the suspension, but clearly he got away with it on the ice.

     

    On the plus side, there are only so many 'get out of jail free' cards when you play the game and MaxiPad just forfeited 1 at least.  His number will come up one way or the other.

     

    It's just a matter of time.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from NeelyOrrBourque. Show NeelyOrrBourque's posts

    Re: Pacioretty

    In response to BadHabitude's comment:

     

    I'm just glad he didn't run a Bruin and McD wasn't hurt that bad.  I think you could argue about the suspension, but clearly he got away with it on the ice.

     

    On the plus side, there are only so many 'get out of jail free' cards when you play the game and MaxiPad just forfeited 1 at least.  His number will come up one way or the other.

     

    It's just a matter of time.



    But it should've been this time. Brenden is getting as inconsistent about his suspensions as the refs are at calling games. It must be extra confusion for the players that get hurt & the ones that get away with this garbage. As of right now I don't know what is, or isn't suspendable any more. It's a total crap shoot. Is there a link that shows Shanny explaining why the "concussed movie go'er" didn't get suspended?

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Pacioretty

    It's pretty sad when even the Habs fans feel like Max Pac should've been suspended for the hit. Shanahan really crapped the bed on this one. It's embarrassing.

     

    http://www.prosportsdaily.com/articles/pacioretty-definitely-jumped-and-elbowed-should-have-been-suspended-234068.html

     

     

     

     

Share