HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Philadelphia Flyers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=21)
-   -   The example (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=62424)

anonymous* 03-16-2004 05:46 AM

The example
 
In the game the other day against the Pens, Handzus went down along the wall and a Pens player fell on top of him and took some punches to the back of Zus' head.

If he doesn't get suspended, does the example the league tried to make of Bertuzzi's actions lose all credibility? Isn't the action as much of a problem as the result? If it hadn't been accepted all along would Bertuzzi have dealt with the situation the way he did?

It seems to me that by allowing punches with gloves on in scrums along the wall and in front of the net, before and after the whistle, created an atmosphere where it seemed almost acceptable to punch a guy with a gloved fist.

Bob Clarke Fan Club 03-16-2004 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anonymous
In the game the other day against the Pens, Handzus went down along the wall and a Pens player fell on top of him and took some punches to the back of Zus' head.

If he doesn't get suspended, does the example the league tried to make of Bertuzzi's actions lose all credibility? Isn't the action as much of a problem as the result? If it hadn't been accepted all along would Bertuzzi have dealt with the situation the way he did?

It seems to me that by allowing punches with gloves on in scrums along the wall and in front of the net, before and after the whistle, created an atmosphere where it seemed almost acceptable to punch a guy with a gloved fist.





I saw a defenseman cross check a forward right on the back of the neck last night in the TO/Buffalo game. This is a fairly common occurrence in the league. I think the aggravating circumstances in the bertuzzi incident made everything much worse. The "bounty," was over the top and the injury was the last straw IMO. Interesting when you wonder what the league would have done had their been no injury. The physical game is going to hell in the NHL.

Flyers26 03-16-2004 07:37 AM

Get rid of the instigator penalty, and you'll get rid of the cheap shots.
Let the players police themselves, and you'll see a major change.

donelikedinner 03-16-2004 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyers26
Get rid of the instigator penalty, and you'll get rid of the cheap shots.
Let the players police themselves, and you'll see a major change.

funny how all the fans know this, but bettman and his crew of clowns can't figure it out.

Bob Clarke Fan Club 03-16-2004 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donelikedinner
funny how all the fans know this, but bettman and his crew of clowns can't figure it out.





Bettman ever played....even rec hockey?? :joker:

Flyer765 03-16-2004 08:48 AM

He probably knows as much about hockey as the british prime minister.

FlyHigh 03-16-2004 08:51 AM

another example is when Neil was pounding Somik's head into the ice on that Friday. If Somik is hurt, I'm sure that the league would be up in arms, but as long as no one gets hurt, they won't do a thing. Pretty sad.

capn89* 03-16-2004 10:11 AM

Not until guy's necks are broken will the NHL give a damn... maybe the NHL needs more players like Roenick throwing water bottles at cheese dick **** sucking referee's, while their head is bleeding like a sieve, to get them to wakeup. I respect what JR did at the Allstar weekend, apologizing to the ref, but he shouldn't have because in my opinion his actions were justified.

Dr Love 03-16-2004 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donelikedinner
funny how all the fans know this, but bettman and his crew of clowns can't figure it out.

The league won't/is apprehensive to change it because they fear that it will only give more fodder for the naysayers, and won't help the league's image. So you get stuff like the Sens/Flyers game, which does about the same anyway. A vicious cycle.

anonymous* 03-16-2004 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Love
The league won't/is apprehensive to change it because they fear that it will only give more fodder for the naysayers, and won't help the league's image. So you get stuff like the Sens/Flyers game, which does about the same anyway. A vicious cycle.

You know, it's been about 3 or 4 years since we've seen the Flyers have a line brawl and it is still the image of hockey.

jplush76 03-16-2004 06:18 PM

I saw those punches on handzus too, it was insane. two straight big punches to the back of the head, one while he was down on the ice and no call. ugh

paxtang 03-16-2004 06:25 PM

Plays like what Orpik did happen all the time. They are cheap, and they can be dangerous (not saying Orpik is cheap, it has become all the rage in the NHL). Mabye the instigator doesn't stop flyign elbows, but it certainly stops the gloved shots. If you wanna throw a punch, expect a fight. Some experienced officials, I know Paul Stewart used to say this, if two guys starting throwing shots, he tells his linesmen to back off and let those guys be tough. Most of the guys that throw those punches, guys like Maltby and Cooke, quickly become less brave if they know they don't have to fight.

King Fish 03-16-2004 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by capn89
Not until guy's necks are broken will the NHL give a damn... maybe the NHL needs more players like Roenick throwing water bottles at cheese dick **** sucking referee's, while their head is bleeding like a sieve, to get them to wakeup. I respect what JR did at the Allstar weekend, apologizing to the ref, but he shouldn't have because in my opinion his actions were justified.

I have noticed certain similarities in your posts, can anyone guess what that might be?!

capn89* 03-16-2004 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Fish
I have noticed certain similarities in your posts, can anyone guess what that might be?!

It's blatant. As blatant as nhl officials bias against Donald Brashear.

Brad* 03-16-2004 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by capn89
It's blatant. As blatant as nhl officials bias against Donald Brashear.

But it it's funny that it isn't blocked out by the filter. Funny, and strage.

Anyway, I don't think Orpik should even have been suspended for those punches. Those happen alot in NHL games and are worth a penalty, but not a suspension.

anonymous* 03-16-2004 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyersPhantoms33
But it it's funny that it isn't blocked out by the filter. Funny, and strage.

Anyway, I don't think Orpik should even have been suspended for those punches. Those happen alot in NHL games and are worth a penalty, but not a suspension.

I wasn't lobbying for his suspension, just trying to paint a picture of a symptom that lead to "the incident". It goes unpunished and therefore, like clutching and grabbing, becomes somewhat acceptable.

Perhaps, and this is only perhaps, those acts costing a player games would make a player think twice before doing what Bertuzzi did. To allow it because there was no injury perpetuates the idea that it is okay to do it as long as nobody gets "hurt".

The basic act that lead to Moore's injury happens all the time but is unnecessary and cowardly. I think the league does itself a disservice by letting it go unpunished. Perhaps a large fine and no suspension and make sure every player on every team knows when it gets enforced.

I don't think that because it isn't worthy of suspension and wasn't called on the ice that the players should get off scot-free.

Winston Wolf 03-16-2004 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyersPhantoms33
But it it's funny that it isn't blocked out by the filter. Funny, and strage.

It used to be blocked until the name "Hitchcock" started showing up like Hitch**** (after the new boards were created.)

Brad* 03-16-2004 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anonymous
I don't think that because it isn't worthy of suspension and wasn't called on the ice that the players should get off scot-free.

I agree that it should have been called a penalty. I don't know that the ref even saw it, but if he did there is no reason to let something like that go. If the refs would just call all the penalties they see this game would improve alot.

anonymous* 03-17-2004 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyersPhantoms33
I agree that it should have been called a penalty. I don't know that the ref even saw it, but if he did there is no reason to let something like that go. If the refs would just call all the penalties they see this game would improve alot.

What I really don't get is if the refs are watching mainly where the puck is, that's where the puck was.

How did they not see it? Since there's no possible reason to believe they didn't see it, why didn't they call something?

Is it part of the leagues way of creating parity, by letting bad teams get away with more?

capn89* 03-17-2004 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anonymous
Is it part of the leagues way of creating parity, by letting bad teams get away with more?

And one of my biggest beefs with this (as well as the biggest, most blatant example, are "even up" calls)

I love watching hockey games where one team has like 6 power plays to 1, and then they start calling the weakest of penalties on the one team so that they get more power play chances. How is this fair? If one team is taking more penalities, leave it at that!!! I hate the even up penalty calls, it's supposedly to make it more "fair" yet, how is it fair if the one team is just playing a more solid, penalty free, game? :dunno:

GoneFullHextall 03-18-2004 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by capn89
And one of my biggest beefs with this (as well as the biggest, most blatant example, are "even up" calls)

I love watching hockey games where one team has like 6 power plays to 1, and then they start calling the weakest of penalties on the one team so that they get more power play chances. How is this fair? If one team is taking more penalities, leave it at that!!! I hate the even up penalty calls, it's supposedly to make it more "fair" yet, how is it fair if the one team is just playing a more solid, penalty free, game? :dunno:

or whats a penalty in the 1st is not in the 3rd.

capn89* 03-18-2004 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClarkeMustGoDotCom
or whats a penalty in the 1st is not in the 3rd.

exactly.. inconsistancy is really my biggest beef with the game of hockey.

Bob Clarke Fan Club 03-18-2004 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by capn89
exactly.. inconsistancy is really my biggest beef with the game of hockey.




That's a tick off....but I think that's why we see make up calls so much. So the poor officials can say they were at least bad for both sides. Did I mention how much the coincidental minors on the dives make the refs look just plain silly?

capn89* 03-18-2004 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Clarke Fan Club
That's a tick off....but I think that's why we see make up calls so much. So the poor officials can say they were at least bad for both sides. Did I mention how much the coincidental minors on the dives make the refs look just plain silly?

:joker: Have always loved that "2 Minutes for Tripping, 2 Minutes for diving." Call one or the other, you can't have both... and if they're going to call both, they need a new penalty, like 2 Minutes for Accentuation, or 2 Minutes for Oscar Performance, or 2 Minutes for being a pathetic little **** sucker who can't legitimately play the game of hockey... but honestly, if they want to stop diving... give it more than 2 minutes.

Bob Clarke Fan Club 03-18-2004 10:26 AM

...or even just call the dive. Do they not realize a lot of these players are diving because they won't call the original infraction on it's own?? :dunno:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:00 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.