Re: NHL '10 - '11 Thread
 

That'd be the one. When Luongo shows up to play you get the first 2 games of the series or the Gold Medal game. When his alter ago Luigi shows up you get tonite. That said, the 2 first were not Luongo's fault and the Canucks as a team didn't give him any support for the last 2 periods but the last 6 were saves that Luongo on a normal night should have had.

Re: NHL '10 - '11 Thread
 

Lucic was lucky Burrows didnt bite him or scratch his eyes out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eo-C8mW9A58

Paille got 4 games for this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5ggHK-FDRY
I fail to see any difference in the hits. If anything Hortons was worse he had passed the puck well before the hit where Sawada was still reaching for it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUYqTE3cnuQ

Looks dirty to me and exactly the thing the league says they want out. To me it deserves the same as Paille. If no suspension I think it will really call the leagues motives into question especially given Burrows recieved nothing for biting. No one will argue Boston has not given out more then enough suspect hits this year and isnt a clean team, but two wrongs dont make it right and that was dirty.

Re: NHL '10 - '11 Thread
 

There was lots of dirty to go around, Burrows hack on Thomas that started that whole scrum was a response to the Bruins, especially Chara, slashing the back of every blue and green leg in reach at every opportunity, squirting water off the bench, etc. As soon as the Bruins want to stop their crap then we can all sh!t on the Canucks for their's. Until then it's playoff hockey, get over it.

You fail to see the difference between those hits? You mean other than one was a lateral elbow to the head from the blindside and the other one, although late and interference, was a straight north-south check that caught a player with his head turned? Come on, be realistic.

I'm not justifying Rome's hit. He should definitely should get a couple games for it, especially given that it did injure. That said I wouldn't class that a dirty hit, or intent to injure, but it was way too late and it was to the head. I honestly wouldn't be surprised to see him get the rest of the series. All depends on what the doctors say about Horton's condition tomorrow morning.

Re: NHL '10 - '11 Thread
 

Like I said I dont think the Bs are a clean team no one could argue that. I dont agree with your logic that because of slashing people should take head shots.

Apparently you dont see that in both cases a late hit was delivered to the head to a player without the puck and not expecting the hit. The puck was well gone. If Rome was not trying to injure then what ws he doing. The head down argument is used when a player has the puck and is looking down. He doesnt have the puck and isnt looking down so I guess we should try to use the term correctly no?
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b3...oody/Rome1.png
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b3...oody/rome3.png

To me and a lot of others its a late hit to the head on an unsuspecting player without the puck. Thats dirty. He left his feet as well.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b3...oody/rome4.png

Re: NHL '10 - '11 Thread
 

You're combining two different points, I probably didn't separate them out enough. The slashing and whatnot was a reference to Lucic taunting Burrows in that scrum. The scrum resulted from Burrows slashing at Thomas' glove hand as the play died which was in turn a response to all the other slashing. It had nothing to do with the Rome-Horton hit as it was in the 3rd and well after that fact. My only issue with Lucic's finger pointing at Burrows is the hypocrisy of Julien calling out the Canucks for LaPierre's taunting in Game 2 only to have not one but two Bruins do exactly what Julien said he'd never allow his players to ever do because it denigrates the game.

Intent to injure? We obviously have very different definitions of that. Eager trying to run Sedin through the boards from behind in retaliation for Marlowe picking a fight with Bieska only to have his arse handed to him... that's intent to injure. Unlike that hit, or the Paille one you brought up, Rome's hit would have been completely legal if he'd completed it 2 seconds before and if Horton had been ready for it (ie. had his head up instead of watching his pass) then it wouldn't have caught him in the head or resulted in him hitting his head off the ice.

There's no disputing that Rome is guilty of a late hit and therefore interference. Given the severity of the result of the hit there's no questioning that it called for a match penalty and I'm sure it will result in a suspension. All well deserved I say. Intent to injure? Please. IF that was the case his elbow would have come up and/or he would have actually left his feet into the hit (and not after the impact in reaction to the force of the hit as the replay clearly shows is the case). Rome is hardly known for being a Matt Cooke type of player, why would he pick Game 3 of the Finals when the Canucks were well ahead in the series to start? No, there was no intent to injure... just a really stupid decision that unfortunately resulted in a player getting injured.

Re: NHL '10 - '11 Thread
 

Damn my bad you said head turned. Reading fail on my part. I actually read some canucks fans on another board arguing head down and somehow got your and their posts mixed. Again my bad I jumped you on that one.

He went shoulder to face. Him leaving his feat shows he was driving up and into the head. It wasnt a chest hit. He went for the head and drove through the head.I never said Rome is Cooke. Nobody is. I wont repeat the reasons again why I think it was Dirty as they are above.

We will definetly agree to disagree. I will just be stunned if he doesnt get 3-4 though.

Edit. I am not looking at or arguing the rest of the game. I am only disgussing the hit. Just the hit. Only the hit

Re: NHL '10 - '11 Thread
 

OOOOOO shizz I see you lurking AL. Now call me an idiot and get to work. :r

Night boys. Its fun stirring the pot but got to go to bed.

Re: NHL '10 - '11 Thread
 

No. The head down argument is used when a player either has the puck, is expecting the puck or has just released the puck and is following the puck instead of concentrating on opposing players. As much as Horton should have had his head up and in the play, it doesn't provide any justification for a late hit well after he'd passed the puck off.

Re: NHL '10 - '11 Thread
 

Actually no, it was a poorly timed and late hit on a player that he would have expected to have his head facing the direction of travel instead of admiring his pass. It was that head turned motion that allowed the hit to be shoulder to head, nothing more. I'm not trying to say that it was Horton's fault as a result but was not a headhunting or intent to injure play. Like I said above, properly timed that would have been a perfectly legal hit.

I agree and hope you're right for a couple reasons. Firstly because it's important to send a message that these kinds of hits are just as unacceptable as the Cook hit on Savard or the Paille hit or the Charra hit on Pacioretty (although we know how well the league dealt with that one :rolleyes: ). Secondly because it means that Ballard will finally get into the lineup, I think he should have been playing tonight in Rome's place anyways.

Re: NHL '10 - '11 Thread
 

That was an awesome beat down last night.
I heard most of it on the radio and the announcers were going nuts.


Before the hit on Horton it was a pretty evenly played chippiness on both sides.
They came out and took care of business last night.
They need to keep the intensity up and under control and they are going to make this and epic series.

The news on Horton is: He is moving all of his extremities and is talking but he thinks he is still in Vancouver. He won't be back. That's a shame.

I can't wait for Wednesday!!!

Re: NHL '10 - '11 Thread
 

Regardless of the intent, Horton for Rome for any amount of games is a win for the Canucks. :hn

Re: NHL '10 - '11 Thread
 

:tu

Re: NHL '10 - '11 Thread
 

Yup!

Horton will be missed in through the rest of the series.

Although if Rome, is suspended the Cunucks will have lost two of their top five defensemen in this series.

Re: NHL '10 - '11 Thread
 

I guess when Julien said he wouldn't accept that behaviour from his players, it just meant he would give them a good talking to. My favorite thing said after the game was when the sucker punching, taunting Lucic said, "We're a classy team and we want to remain that way."

Re: NHL '10 - '11 Thread
 

This is kind of my take on it too. Really what else is he going to do. obviously neither of those guys are getting benched or scratched in the Final over something like that. Especially when Boston is down 2 - 1. I just find the hypocrisy both amazing and ironic.

Good, and obviously bad, news on Horton. Pretty sure this is the same report that was sent back to the rink last night. Hopefully he's doing much better this morning although I tend to think that you're right and he won't be back for at least tomorrow night. That was two big hits to the head, no point rushing him back and potentially risking the rest of his career.

While true, Vancouver is so deep on D that it doesn't really matter. Loosing Hamhuis really hurt because he and Bieska are our top D pairing, loosing Rome isn't as big a deal given that we have Tanev and Ballad in reserve. Ballard would be a top D man on pretty much any other team in the league, and probably will be next year if Gillis can find someone willing to take the $4 million cap hit. There's also always the chance that Hamhuis could be back tomorrow night. What's really hurt Vancouver in terms of D is having to shorten the bench for 2 games and play with only 5.

Re: NHL '10 - '11 Thread
 

Big mistake to keep Luongo in net that long. Good for the Bruins. Will he bounce back tomorrow? I hope not.

Re: NHL '10 - '11 Thread
 

Geoff Sharks are in the market for some defense men. Possible they grab him. Depends on who is available and what they can get for the money.

As to your other posts to me as I said last night we will agree to disagree.

Moses I know Tom and I hope he goes basket case as only he can sometimes.

Re: NHL '10 - '11 Thread
 

That would certainly benefit both teams if the Sharks did Mike. Ballard is obviously in Vigneault's dog house, you don't sit a $4 million/yr player unless you have absolutely no confidence in him (or he's been sleeping with your wife). The Shark's could benefit from a D man of Ballard's calibre and that clears $4million off our cap in a year when both Bieksa and Erhoff go into RFA. I would also expect Salo to retire after this year if we in the Cup freeing up another $6million. With that extra $10million it would allow us to keep both Bieska and Erhoff thus saving Vancouver some the same kind of free agency decimation that Chicago experienced after their Cup win last year.

Re: NHL '10 - '11 Thread
 

Rome has been suspended for 4 games.

Re: NHL '10 - '11 Thread
 

4 games seems less than arbitrary, guess the NHL decided he should be gone the rest of the series, as I assume Horton will be.