Vermette vs Bergeron
View Single Post
10-26-2004, 05:58 PM
Join Date: Jun 2004
Originally Posted by
and i thought Montreal fans were bad were comparing Thornton to the next coming of Lucifer
,,,,,yes i remember the hit, and i think the puck was in the area, hence both players going for it, or something to that effect, i dont claim to have a photographic memory of the incident, but from what i do remember, it wasnt a cheap hit by either guy.
1. What does that mean.
2. I didnt compare anyone to anyone else.
3. Last I checked Montreal fans werent comparing Thornton to Lucifer, actually they were saying he was a no-show
I'll try to lay out an analysis based on the facts as we know them
If both players are going for the puck, one of them ends up with it, right? Since hitting a guy who doesent have the puck is dirty, and you say the hit wasnt dirty one of the two players must have had the puck, right? The player that doesent have posession of said puck may or may not try to hit the player that does, in fact have possesion of said puck, right? When there is a knee on knee collison or a low-bridging hit, the player getting a busted knee is the player getting hurt because the other player was ready for the collison, right? Therefore since Varada ended up getting hurt and busting up his knee, he must have had the puck and received the hit, right? Since Varada had the puck and received the hit, then, since we are talking about two players Bergeron must have hit him, right? Finally since a knee on knee or a low-bridge hit is a dirty hit, whether or not the victim has the puck, the Bergeron on Varada hit
in fact dirty, right?
Thats being said the hit could'nt quite be place into the low-bridge category or into the knee on knee category, it was more of a hybrid, but since both of those are dirty, I think the hit was dirty. AND I would like to officially dub it a
, as in
ohhh he pulled a Bergeron on him
he Bergeron'd him
Last edited by Bileur: 10-26-2004 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Bileur