View Single Post
04-24-2006, 11:32 PM
Registered User
dedalus's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Flyers4ever
Umm funny how you pull two phrases that were apart from each other to make one statement.
They're not one statement, nor did I attempt to make them one. That's why the half-assed ellipsis is there; that's what ellipses do.

Rather, I was showing an an apparent contradiction in two statements.

Originally Posted by Flyers4ever
I also feel that Campell had other options other than trying to bash a guy's skull to the ground.. How is it that everyone was all up in arms over the Bertuzzi hit yet are defending that kind of hockey?
Campbell did not attempt to bash Umberger's skull to the ground. Campbell made contact then immediately turned to pursue the play that was now behind him. This is where your comparison with Bertuzzi is terribly, terribly faulty. Not only did Bertuzzi attack his man from behind and out of the play, Bertuzzi actually RODE Moore down to the ice.

Honestly, two hits couldn't be more different.

Originally Posted by Flyers4ever
You can make clean hits without ruining a guys career. I have seen it
Yes and you saw a clean hit from Campbell the other night. And we've all seen clean hits that DO ruin a player's career even though that was never the intent of the guy who was hitting.

Maybe a better way to approach this is to ask you what exactly a clean, hard hit (the kind you like) that should NOT be penalized looks like to you? In other words, set up some criteria that a referee could use to determine which clean hard hits should be penalized and which should not.

dedalus is offline   Reply With Quote