HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Hope Klesla is Okay

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-02-2004, 11:20 AM
  #126
kyle
Registered User
 
kyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 636
vCash: 500
The hit was either dirty or careless; take your pick.

Every single player is aware of when line changes are occurring: they have to be to avoid Too Many Men penalties. Either Maltby knew the door was open and hit Klesla into it OR he wasn't aware it was open in which case he is a reckless and careless hockey player.

I don't see anyway around that point.

kyle is offline  
Old
04-02-2004, 11:56 AM
  #127
X8oD
Registered User
 
X8oD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: 612 Warf Ave.
Country: United States
Posts: 7,261
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyle
The hit was either dirty or careless; take your pick.
Either Maltby knew the door was open and hit Klesla into it OR he wasn't aware it was open in which case he is a reckless and careless hockey player.

I don't see anyway around that point.
kind of a broad spectrum, and subsequent tough end view of it.

So, he either knew the door was open and did it on purpose.. Making him an ass.. Or he didnt know the door was open, in which case he SHOULD of knew, making him an ass.

Ill go for the third one, the view that ESPN, The CBJ TV and Radio announcers, as well as The wings and thier announcers are taking. Maltby was backchecking and finished his check on Klesla, who unfortunatly went into an open door. Nobody was at fault, as the angle maltby came from lead him no way to see the door. Its a shame to see it, but Klesla only has a bruise, and it could of been a lot worse. Nobody is at fault, as it was an accident and there is no way you could expect anybody to take it the other way.

Or, well thats what the guys calling the game in Columbus said.

X8oD is offline  
Old
04-02-2004, 12:10 PM
  #128
Harold Snepsts
Registered User
 
Harold Snepsts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 5,892
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyle
The hit was either dirty or careless; take your pick.

Every single player is aware of when line changes are occurring: they have to be to avoid Too Many Men penalties. Either Maltby knew the door was open and hit Klesla into it OR he wasn't aware it was open in which case he is a reckless and careless hockey player.

I don't see anyway around that point.
I don't think it's an either or situation.

Maltby was probably aware that players were changing, because he too was going to be changing. But that doesn't necessarily means he should be aware that the door is open or closed or that his hit will be timed perfectly so Klesla falls into the open door.


With so much going on and things happening so fast in a game, I find it hard to believe most stuff like that is premeditated. With the speed of the game at the NHL level, it's hard enough just to line a guy up and hit him, let alone try to execute a move that would send him into an open door.

It was most likely that he saw Klesla with the puck and wanted to rub him out along the boards, so he did.

Harold Snepsts is offline  
Old
04-02-2004, 01:19 PM
  #129
Steve Latin*
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Thinbonesville
Posts: 1,583
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Higgy4
What a clever retort.

S L

Steve Latin* is offline  
Old
04-02-2004, 03:28 PM
  #130
Higgy4
Registered User
 
Higgy4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Toledo, Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 7,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Latin
What a clever retort.

S L

Thanks, I liked it too. I figured I would just save my breath. Because even when someone tries to give an opinion on this, all we get is Wings biased thrown in our faces. I am a Wings fan, obviously. But I know hockey. I am not a rose-colored glasses type of fan. If somebody on the Wings does something stupid, I am first in line to criticize. I am just tired of everyone claiming that we disagree simply because we are Wings fans. We can argue till we are blue in the face, but in the end somebody just brings the Wings bias part back into the conversation.

So I figured I would just give a little roll of the eyes, because it matters NOT what we have to say. We are just bias Wings fans....right?????

Higgy4 is offline  
Old
04-02-2004, 05:15 PM
  #131
Steve Latin*
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Thinbonesville
Posts: 1,583
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Higgy4
Thanks, I liked it too. I figured I would just save my breath. Because even when someone tries to give an opinion on this, all we get is Wings biased thrown in our faces. I am a Wings fan, obviously. But I know hockey. I am not a rose-colored glasses type of fan. If somebody on the Wings does something stupid, I am first in line to criticize. I am just tired of everyone claiming that we disagree simply because we are Wings fans. We can argue till we are blue in the face, but in the end somebody just brings the Wings bias part back into the conversation.

So I figured I would just give a little roll of the eyes, because it matters NOT what we have to say. We are just bias Wings fans....right?????
So, as I suspected, you didn't actually read my post. I'll present it again, for your edification:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Me
Even if Maltby didn't intentionally hit Klesla into the bench, it's a careless play, and a dangerous one that can really hurt a player. That said, this type of stuff should be handled just like high-sticking. If you want to gamble on whether or not the door is open before you make a hit, you should have to pay if you make the wrong decision -- Maltby should have been assessed a major penalty for being unaware, or the team should have been issued a bench penalty for having the door open where the puck was in play.
I don't think I reserved any special criticism for the Wings or Maltby here. I was making the more general point that players (on the ice, or controlling the bench door) should be held responsible when they do something around the bench that puts a player at a special risk. I think the high sticking analogy is appropriate -- you're allowing to have your stick in the air, but if happens to smack a guy in the face you pay a price for your carelessness.

S L

Steve Latin* is offline  
Old
04-02-2004, 06:09 PM
  #132
Harold Snepsts
Registered User
 
Harold Snepsts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 5,892
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Latin
I was making the more general point that players (on the ice, or controlling the bench door) should be held responsible when they do something around the bench that puts a player at a special risk. I think the high sticking analogy is appropriate -- you're allowing to have your stick in the air, but if happens to smack a guy in the face you pay a price for your carelessness.

S L
But players are the only ones in control of their own sticks. Whereas they have little or no control over the bench door being open.

So by your logic should McCarty have gotten a penalty for opening the door?

Harold Snepsts is offline  
Old
04-03-2004, 12:03 AM
  #133
Higgy4
Registered User
 
Higgy4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Toledo, Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 7,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Latin
So, as I suspected, you didn't actually read my post. I'll present it again, for your edification:



I don't think I reserved any special criticism for the Wings or Maltby here. I was making the more general point that players (on the ice, or controlling the bench door) should be held responsible when they do something around the bench that puts a player at a special risk. I think the high sticking analogy is appropriate -- you're allowing to have your stick in the air, but if happens to smack a guy in the face you pay a price for your carelessness.

S L
S L, I didnt mean to implicate you PERSONALLY, and I apologize if thats the way it came across. I was simply responding to your post in a general manner.

Higgy4 is offline  
Old
04-03-2004, 11:32 AM
  #134
Steve Latin*
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Thinbonesville
Posts: 1,583
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold Snepts
But players are the only ones in control of their own sticks. Whereas they have little or no control over the bench door being open.

So by your logic should McCarty have gotten a penalty for opening the door?
So you're unfamiliar with the notion of a "bench penalty"? And yes, one option is assessing (any player on the bench) a penalty for opening the door at a dangerous and inoportune time.

S L

Steve Latin* is offline  
Old
04-03-2004, 12:01 PM
  #135
Harold Snepsts
Registered User
 
Harold Snepsts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 5,892
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Latin
So you're unfamiliar with the notion of a "bench penalty"? And yes, one option is assessing (any player on the bench) a penalty for opening the door at a dangerous and inoportune time.

S L
No Captain Sarcastic, I'm not unfamiliar with the concept of a bench penalty.

I just think it would be ridiculous to assess a penalty to a player on the bench because he opened the door at "an inopportune time."

What exactly constitutes an inopportune time?

With a game that moves as quickly as hockey, how will a player know when it's completely safe to open the door? especially when they're changing on the fly and there's several players from both teams milling around the benches.

So they shouldn't open the door during major line changes (which will almost always be potentially dangerous because of the number of players entering and exiting the ice) even though that's when they most need the door open?

Harold Snepsts is offline  
Old
04-03-2004, 01:20 PM
  #136
Higgy4
Registered User
 
Higgy4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Toledo, Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 7,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Latin
So you're unfamiliar with the notion of a "bench penalty"? And yes, one option is assessing (any player on the bench) a penalty for opening the door at a dangerous and inoportune time.

S L

This is just dumb. Yes, if a player is sitting on the bench and sees that an opposing player is heading right for the door and he opens it purposely to cause the player to fall into the bench...then I agree. But when has that ever happened?

The whole Klesla thing happened right at the time of a line change. McCarty was coming in the door after his change. So you think the teams should now be held accountable for making sure that their line changes do not injure anybody?

Higgy4 is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:07 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.