View Single Post
Old
03-07-2012, 05:36 PM
  #133
Damaged Goods
Registered User
 
Damaged Goods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by giraffywaffy View Post
They're preaching on eliminating targeted headshots. I don't know why it's so difficult to differentiate and separate the two. Inadvertent hits to the head happen. It's a fast sport. Last night was an unfortunate case of it.

Tons of analysts and puck heads in the media are calling it a clean hit. Jagr said it's hockey and it's clean. Briere said it's unfortunate, but its' hockey and you can't get rid of that hit because Kronwall was stepping up like a defenseman should. How does that make you feel that you're essentially arguing a losing battle?

I understand where you're coming from since you feel like there's a lack of consistency with regards to what is illegal and what is legal, but this isn't the first of it's type of hit that DID NOT result in a suspension. It's not a groundbreaking decision. It was actually a rather quick decision because of the comparables before it.

Simple as that. It sucks that Voracek got smashed and became injured. You can't protect everything in hockey and in this case, it's clear that Kronwall didn't seek the head out. Just seeing the image of Voracek lunging forward toward the puck and meeting the back of his shoulder as Kronwall stands straight up is enough evidence to end this. If he had gotten him from the side or went upward, certainly it's bad, but he came head on like a truck
Tough to say that it's inadvertent -- or at the very least not reckless -- of Kronwall when he already has carbon copies of this hit on Heatley and Havlat on his head-shot resume.

Damaged Goods is offline   Reply With Quote