View Single Post
10-03-2013, 04:56 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 352
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Zine View Post
1. 'Heat of the moment'? Unlike the other dirty plays, reactions and tactics employed by both sides in the series (i.e. Mikhailov kick, etc.), Clarke's slash was a premeditated attack, ordered from the bench, with the sole intent of removing Soviets best player.

2. Canadians would no doubt view such an act differently if roles were reversed.
Had Ragulin (on premeditated orders from Bobrov) intentionally and blatantly taken out Esposito, no amount of alcohol could make me believe the Canadian reaction would be "despicable play, but that's hockey, win at all costs, if you don't like it get off the ice." Not in a million years.

I agree 100%! Reverse the roles and Canadians would have gone nuts. And as I said earlier - that was a stupid thing to do as you are inviting retaliation. Clarke was basically saying "this is how we play - we don't care about the rules and go ahead and take one of our stars out. We don't care."

As well I also said this earlier. Clarke's actions cheapened our win. I wanted Team Canada to beat the best Soviet team fair and square. With Kharlamov out and then at maybe half speed the Soviets didn't have their best.

Finally in defense of Rick Ley. What he did was wrong - fighting is always wrong. But that truly was "heat of the moment." He momentarily "lost it." What Clarke did was cold blooded, premeditated, etc.

Craig Wallace

cam042686 is offline   Reply With Quote