NHL '09 - '10 Thread

[mtaill]

Originally Posted by icehog3

Saw the hit this morning and I don't see anything illegal with it.
Just a hard legal hit to me.

[jmsremax]

Originally Posted by mtaill

Saw the hit this morning and I don't see anything illegal with it.
Just a hard legal hit to me.

I disagree...Seabrook wasn't even in the play and look how hard Wisniewski skates over to him just so he can deliberately throw a high elbow/stick to his face. Completely uncalled for.

[icehog3]

Originally Posted by jmsremax

I disagree...Seabrook wasn't even in the play and look how hard Wisniewski skates over to him just so he can deliberately throw a high elbow to his face. Completely uncalled for.

Yup...He skated 65 feet in from the blueline with the intent to injure. There was no other reason for him to be in deep on that play. I guess we shall see what Colin Campbell has to say on the matter.

[yourchoice]

Thanks for the link to the replay Tom. I watched a good chunk of the game last night on NHL Network, but missed it. That was a vicious hit.

Originally Posted by jmsremax

I disagree...Seabrook wasn't even in the play and look how hard Wisniewski skates over to him just so he can deliberately throw a high elbow/stick to his face. Completely uncalled for.

It seemed pretty clear to me the hit was delivered as a response to Seabrook's hit 20 seconds earlier. Was Wisniewski's hit illegal? Yes. Intent to injure? Not sure...really hard to say. Uncalled for? IMHO, no. Seabrook was late delivering his check...which looked high and bounced the guy's head off of the boards. The hit he received clearly seemed retaliatory and, IMHO, definitely served a purpose. Just like fighting majors, some are uncalled for, but many serve a purpose in the game.

All IMHO.

[jmsremax]

Originally Posted by yourchoice

Was Wisniewski's hit illegal? Yes. Intent to injure? Not sure...really hard to say. Uncalled for? IMHO, no. Seabrook was late delivering his check...which looked high and bounced the guy's head off of the boards. The hit he received clearly seemed retaliatory and, IMHO, definitely served a purpose. Just like fighting majors, some are uncalled for, but many serve a purpose in the game.

All IMHO.

Illegal hits should never been called for. Settle it in the appropriate manner....take off the gloves and fight it out. Players seem to be retaliating in an unprofessional manner and it's causing some serious injuries.

[icehog3]

Originally Posted by yourchoice

Thanks for the link to the replay Tom. I watched a good chunk of the game last night on NHL Network, but missed it. That was a vicious hit.



It seemed pretty clear to me the hit was delivered as a response to Seabrook's hit 20 seconds earlier. Was Wisniewski's hit illegal? Yes. Intent to injure? Not sure...really hard to say. Uncalled for? IMHO, no. Seabrook was late delivering his check...which looked high and bounced the guy's head off of the boards. The hit he received clearly seemed retaliatory and, IMHO, definitely served a purpose. Just like fighting majors, some are uncalled for, but many serve a purpose in the game.

All IMHO.

While I agree the hit on Perry was late also, it only caught him high because Perry was bent low, I don't think there was any intent to deliver a head shot. Wiz left his feet and came charging from 65 feet out to put his stick and forearm into Seabrook's melon. I absolutely think if was uncalled for, but again, I respect your view, but hope that Campbell sees it the way I do.

[yourchoice]

Originally Posted by jmsremax

Illegal hits should never been called for. Settle it in the appropriate manner....take off the gloves and fight it out. Players seem to be retaliating in an unprofessional manner and it's causing some serious injuries.

I don't think explained myself clearly. It was illegal in the fact it should have been a penalty. Fighting is, by the same definition, illegal. Same with hooking, slashing, etc.

I think what makes hockey such a great sport is that the players can, to some extent, police themselves. It's tough to balance self-policing and 100% clean play though. If rules were put in place that took some of that away I think the sport’s popularity would diminish even further.

It's kind of similar to the headache (pun not intended) that Nascar is dealing with right now. They want their drivers to police themselves on the track, because that's what the fans want. Then in their fourth race someone gets intentionally spun and accidentally flipped upside down. Oops! Now what? (Sorry for bringing Nascar into the discussion! )

To really confuse matters () if Wisniewski were suspended I wouldn't have a problem with it. I just didn't see the hit as "uncalled for". If a player gets hurt by way of an illegal hit, then I think it should be left up to the discretion of the league whether any further action should be taken (probation, fines, suspensions, etc.), regardless if the intent was to injure (which I think is impossible to determine anyway). The fact that the hit was illegal is enough for me.

[yourchoice]

Now if only the Flyers had a dependable goalie... I am wary enough of Leighton. Now with him out for now (D2D), they have to rely on Boucher?

The Flyers haven't had a top 6 goalie since Lindbergh, arguably a top 10 in Hextall, but either way it's been more than or close to 20 years.

[Ahbroody]

Originally Posted by mtaill

Saw the hit this morning and I don't see anything illegal with it.
Just a hard legal hit to me.

you saw this and think it was a hard legal hit?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtSx2z_CPKQ
I see charging, elbowing, and the all important headshot. He left his feet just to get the elbow to the face. Nope nothing illegal there.


Surely neither of you should have an issue with this hit either. After all McAmmond had the puck only a second prior.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LItMq...eature=related