HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Nashville Predators
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Penaltypalooza: 12/9/08: Nasvhille vs. Vancouver

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-10-2008, 03:40 PM
  #51
DL44
Registered User
 
DL44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 6,136
vCash: 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch View Post
if you play with the pause button at the 1:32 mark... you see in the blurred frames that a) burrows elbows are down and b) he's on the ice for the initial contact. c) contact was in the chest, not a head shot or a clothesline.
clean hit.
looks at lot worse in full speed because of the follow thru airtime...
see for yourselves...

DL44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2008, 04:04 PM
  #52
Seth Lake
Registered User
 
Seth Lake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Nashville, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 8,855
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Seth Lake
NHL says no discipline coming from last night...
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20...51/1002/SPORTS

Bull...and that's all I'll say...

Seth Lake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2008, 04:21 PM
  #53
lugnut76
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Country: United States
Posts: 157
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DL44 View Post
if you play with the pause button at the 1:32 mark... you see in the blurred frames that a) burrows elbows are down and b) he's on the ice for the initial contact. c) contact was in the chest, not a head shot or a clothesline.
clean hit.
looks at lot worse in full speed because of the follow thru airtime...
see for yourselves...
I took your advice and all I can say is. . .

a) you are a homer
b) you are a homer
c) homer

lugnut76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2008, 04:25 PM
  #54
DManPreds11
Registered User
 
DManPreds11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 260
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DL44 View Post
if you play with the pause button at the 1:32 mark... you see in the blurred frames that a) burrows elbows are down and b) he's on the ice for the initial contact. c) contact was in the chest, not a head shot or a clothesline.
clean hit.
looks at lot worse in full speed because of the follow thru airtime...
see for yourselves...
Na what makes it worse is that he nearly bends down into a squat before coming up to deliver the blow up around the head. Dumont was in a vulnerable position because the puck was chipped up into his chest. We can sit here all day and argue bias opinions, bottom line the games officating crew should be fired. The hit on Nichol IMO was clean, hope he's alright. I think Tootoo not in line up gave the Canucks players reason to be more physical with us, if he's in the game probably ends after the Davidson hit on Nichol. Props to Arnott for going after Burrows, the boarding call was only made a major because they knew that Weber was going to get a double. I seen Shea holding his shoulder in the penalty box, any word on that, he seemed ok? Glad to see Dumont back on the ice later in the game I was worried about his staus until then. This is way off topic but what's up with the one night home stands, I don't remember last season us having this many away/home/away games.

DManPreds11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2008, 04:38 PM
  #55
DManPreds11
Registered User
 
DManPreds11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 260
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lugnut76 View Post
I took your advice and all I can say is. . .

a) you are a homer
b) you are a homer
c) homer

How bout

d) All of the above

DManPreds11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2008, 04:58 PM
  #56
DManPreds11
Registered User
 
DManPreds11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 260
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLake View Post
NHL says no discipline coming from last night...
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20...51/1002/SPORTS

Bull...and that's all I'll say...
Now you know that if they would have(which I knew they wouldn't) Bettman's email will fill up with all kinds of "Nashville doesn't even deserve a team, why would you suspend anything we do on the ice against them". "Why can't we get more teams in Canada" Blah Blah B....S...

DManPreds11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2008, 05:28 PM
  #57
deleted
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Posts: 257
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DL44 View Post
if you play with the pause button at the 1:32 mark... you see in the blurred frames that a) burrows elbows are down and b) he's on the ice for the initial contact. c) contact was in the chest, not a head shot or a clothesline.
clean hit.
looks at lot worse in full speed because of the follow thru airtime...
see for yourselves...
1. A blurry low quality youtube video proves nothing
2. You can't tell when the impact happened from the angle of the replay
3. Go on tsn.ca and check out the highlights, then do your little pause idea and
you can see he was off the ice and the forearm was up.
4. Deal with the fact that a player made a bad decision and quit trying to prove that
it wasn't.
5. The league has spoken and the matter is over

deleted is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2008, 06:42 PM
  #58
predfan24
Registered User
 
predfan24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,204
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLake View Post
NHL says no discipline coming from last night...
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20...51/1002/SPORTS

Bull...and that's all I'll say...
Once again proves how inept Colin campbell and the people who makes these descions are. They never give out anything unless someone is hurt. If Dumont wouldve been seriously injured Burrows would be sitting for at least 5 games. But since he got up fine in their eye's it's a no harm no foul situation. That is a freaking joke.

predfan24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2008, 06:59 PM
  #59
Seth Lake
Registered User
 
Seth Lake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Nashville, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 8,855
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Seth Lake
You know what the saddest part of all of this is...it's that the NHL clearly admits there should have been penalties called, which essentially admits that the referees didn't do their jobs and let this game get way out of hand.

Now, for the rematch on January 1st, the NHL will warn the teams prior to the game that anything done to retaliate will be severely disciplined and will enforce that by putting out some of their "grudge-match" game refs (VanMassenhoven, Koharski, or Pollack) and they'll call the game as tight as possible to try to eliminate any chance for retribution.

For the first time since I started attending NHL games back on March 28th, 1988 last night I seriously was so fed up with watching the game due to the lack of player safety calls by the officials and their insistence on calling any little infraction with the stick that I considered leaving the arena during the second intermission. The officiating last night was absolutely horrendous by Leggo and Watson and ruined the game and allowed one team to get cheapshotted all night and then have to turn around and kill off penalty after penalty when they stood up for each other.

I saw that someone had a problem with what Shea did that cost us PP time. I ran into this same opinion last night during the post-game and have only to say that neither Shea or I were under the impression that a player safety penalty (boarding, charging, cross-checking, slashing, etc) was going to be penalized by the officials last night. They had set that precedent time and time again last night. Neither myself in the stands or Terry Crisp up in the broadcast booth thought there was an initial boarding call coming. It wasn't until I was shown video of the incident on TSN's highlights post-game that I saw that the official immediately raised his arm to indicate a penalty. However the precedent was already set and I have no problem whatsoever with what Weber did because it is what the officials encouraged players to do last night.

The officials literally encouraged players to police themselves and unfortunately that is what lead to the Bertuzzi - Moore incident years ago and to see games like last night continue to get called in that manner only lead me to believe that the NHL has some dark days ahead of itself when things get totally out of control on the ice.

Yesterday morning someone here in the STL game-day thread said his wife no longer watches hockey because of her compliant with the inconsistency of the officiating. At the time I didn't think much of it. Officiating is part of the game. But last night had me almost leaving the arena in disgust. As a hockey fan first and foremost, that disturbs me deeply and I cannot imagine how people with far less passion than I think about our game when it is called in such a manner.

Seth Lake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2008, 07:47 PM
  #60
DL44
Registered User
 
DL44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 6,136
vCash: 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by lugnut76 View Post
I took your advice and all I can say is. . .

a) you are a homer
b) you are a homer
c) homer
Didn't mean to be a homer... i was basing it on the following pics....



I was trying to be objective...
here's the point of contact.... i think it's pretty clear Burrows' right arm is along his side...
his feet are more difficult to decipher in the 2nd pic, but the 1st they're on the ice... but what is a fact is that big airtime Burrows achieved with the hit occurred after contact. That's what has everyone upset... people are discussing the hit like he went flying into him already airborne with elbows up. that was obviously not the case... this isn't an opinion... look at the the pics.

And for the record, i thought that Kesler deserved a gm or 2 for his hit...
But i suppose he got off for probably 3 reasons... a) he got nailed with a 5 minute major, and probably b) clean record, and also as someone mentioned c) no injury occurred...
As much as i hate 'c', the league is open about the fact they judge suspensions on the result of said infraction. Cross check to the face with no injury < Exact same cross check resulting in a concussion.. just the way it is.

I'm not supporting the 'no suspension call', just suggesting reasons why the league took no action.

DL44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2008, 08:41 PM
  #61
DL44
Registered User
 
DL44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 6,136
vCash: 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike NHL View Post
alright, here are three videos i just took to try and show my point of view. these clips come directly off my high def widescreen TV in slow motion, so they show off a decent amount of quality, but unfortunately i had capture the video off screen with a digital camera since i don't have the cable to connect my laptop to my PVR yet. quality isn't amazing, but it does show enough to get my point across.

you guys can feel free to download these videos right off my site:

1. Burrows Hit - 1st angle - (23 mb)

2. Burrows Hit - 2nd angle - (26 mb)

1. In terms of the alleged elbow, the thing you want to look out for in this video is the green stripe on the (canucks jersey) at the elbow. This obviously indicates where Burrows' elbow is. If you look and see where Burrows' arm makes contact with Dumont's shoulder/head, it's all white. Additionally, once Dumont falls down (or Burrows goes up, ha), you can see where his elbow is during the hit (the green stripe) and how it was actually behind Dumont's arm the entire time Dumont is falling down. If you look really closely, you can see that's it's the Burrows' NUMBER on the jersey (which is located more or less on the tricep) that makes contact with Dumont, not the elbow.

2. This is a really great angle, as it simply shows that neither of Burrows' elbows were anywhere near Dumont's head. I could've just shown you guys this one, but I felt it necessary to first establish all of this with the main angle that most of you saw.

Now what's also important about this clip is it shows in detail when Burrows makes contact with Dumont and when his feet leave the ground. This clip was originally in slow motion on Sportsnet, and I additionally slowed it down to 1/15th time on top of that. When you're watching this video, Burrows first makes contact with Dumont at 0:14 (of the actual video clip itself). You can see that his left foot is clearly planted on the ice and the toe of his right foot is still on the ice as well. Both of his feet don't leave the ground until the 0:19 part of the clip, in which time the hit has clearly already been engaged.

So there you go. People can post that picture of him in the air like Spiderman all they want, but that's the way I saw it.
Ignore the pics i posted above and read and watch the quoted post i've just copied and pasted.

If anyone thinks the hit was illegal and deserving of a suspension after seeing this, well... there's nothing else to be said except... 'homer'.

The Burrows hit was a clean hit. Watch the second video.

Quote:
Originally Posted by slanted View Post
1. A blurry low quality youtube video proves nothing
2. You can't tell when the impact happened from the angle of the replay
3. Go on tsn.ca and check out the highlights, then do your little pause idea and
you can see he was off the ice and the forearm was up.
4. Deal with the fact that a player made a bad decision and quit trying to prove that
it wasn't.
5. The league has spoken and the matter is over
These clips kill the TSN highlights...
The video shows you're wrong.

and to your point 4.. It was a tough hard clean hit that, it turned out, deserved to be defended.


Last edited by DL44: 12-10-2008 at 08:58 PM.
DL44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2008, 10:02 PM
  #62
Enoch
This is my boomstick
 
Enoch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cookeville TN
Country: United States
Posts: 12,550
vCash: 500
I'm sorry, if you think that hit was 'clean', your a homer. You are not going to convince me otherwise. Its unbelievable that you are even arguing this.

__________________
- Enoch -
Enoch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2008, 10:27 PM
  #63
Canucks5551
Registered User
 
Canucks5551's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver Island
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,181
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch View Post
I'm sorry, if you think that hit was 'clean', your a homer. You are not going to convince me otherwise. Its unbelievable that you are even arguing this.
If you watched that second video and still think it's a dirty hit I just don't know what to say.

Canucks5551 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2008, 11:10 PM
  #64
deleted
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Posts: 257
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucks5551 View Post
If you watched that second video and still think it's a dirty hit I just don't know what to say.
Any hit that should have resulted in a penalty is "Dirty", this one should have resulted in 2. If you really want to argue whether or not a penalty should have been called, which in turn determines whether or not it was "dirty". Send your blurry Youtube screen captures to the nhl front office and you can argue with them since they have already said 2 infractions could have been enforced. Otherwise your just wasting our time. thanks for coming around and providing us with a reason to keep talking about the DIRTY hit that resulted in a non-call that the league has already acknowledged.

deleted is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2008, 11:19 PM
  #65
Nitrous Mafia
Registered User
 
Nitrous Mafia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: On Lot
Country: United States
Posts: 2,648
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jones93 View Post
Yet Versus showed a game Monday and we were on TV.

Okay, I thought I was wrong in thinking this but I guess not.



"Oh, it doesn't look as bad in slow motion replay."

This might be the dumbest logic I've ever heard.


Last edited by Nitrous Mafia: 12-10-2008 at 11:25 PM.
Nitrous Mafia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2008, 12:15 AM
  #66
Enoch
This is my boomstick
 
Enoch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cookeville TN
Country: United States
Posts: 12,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by slanted View Post
Any hit that should have resulted in a penalty is "Dirty", this one should have resulted in 2. If you really want to argue whether or not a penalty should have been called, which in turn determines whether or not it was "dirty". Send your blurry Youtube screen captures to the nhl front office and you can argue with them since they have already said 2 infractions could have been enforced. Otherwise your just wasting our time. thanks for coming around and providing us with a reason to keep talking about the DIRTY hit that resulted in a non-call that the league has already acknowledged.
Thank you very much for pointing out the obvious to our resident Canuck homer, who feels the need to defend his players to people who just do not care . As for the hit, anyone that watches how how high he throws his elbow and then further sees the elevation of the hit (literally about 3 feet in the air) and connection of the elbow to Dumont's head, has to realistically say the hit was a dirty hit. It was a clear head-hunting maneuvar, which to me, is dirty.

Enoch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2008, 01:45 AM
  #67
sparkle twin
Real Deal
 
sparkle twin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Hendersonville, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 2,935
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to sparkle twin Send a message via AIM to sparkle twin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jones93
Yet Versus showed a game Monday and we were on TV.
I know, but Monday wasn't an "exclusive" game. That's what happened to our game vs Washington in October. It's a totally stupid rule.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BorisGrishenko View Post
Hockeybuzz.com is now officially the most retarded website in existence
I was reading some of the comments. One Van. fan actually suggested the Canucks should have punched someone like Bertuzzi did. The whole group loses any credibility for that garbage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch View Post
Thank you very much for pointing out the obvious to our resident Canuck homer, who feels the need to defend his players to people who just do not care . As for the hit, anyone that watches how how high he throws his elbow and then further sees the elevation of the hit (literally about 3 feet in the air) and connection of the elbow to Dumont's head, has to realistically say the hit was a dirty hit. It was a clear head-hunting maneuvar, which to me, is dirty.
If Burrows never hit Dumont in the head, how did Dumont lose a tooth?

sparkle twin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2008, 03:05 AM
  #68
DL44
Registered User
 
DL44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 6,136
vCash: 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch View Post
I'm sorry, if you think that hit was 'clean', your a homer. You are not going to convince me otherwise. Its unbelievable that you are even arguing this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch
As for the hit, anyone that watches how how high he throws his elbow and then further sees the elevation of the hit (literally about 3 feet in the air) and connection of the elbow to Dumont's head, has to realistically say the hit was a dirty hit. It was a clear head-hunting maneuvar, which to me, is dirty.
OBVIOUSLY you haven't clicked this link..
Watch it, and then post intelligently...

Watch it twice...
1st look for where Burrows' skates are thru the initial parts of the hit (on the ice)
and a 2nd time to watch where Burrows' elbows are (R arm by his side, left in the chest)
There was NO elbow to any head. if you continue to argue otherwise... well then either your a homer.. or a ....

anyways... Clean hit...

edit: Save the file first... its smoother that way...


Last edited by DL44: 12-11-2008 at 03:14 AM.
DL44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2008, 08:50 AM
  #69
Enoch
This is my boomstick
 
Enoch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cookeville TN
Country: United States
Posts: 12,550
vCash: 500
Yeah, so I watched your link, he jumps into the hit, and his elbow or forearm catches Dumont in the side of the head.

Enoch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2008, 08:52 AM
  #70
RollingPredFan
Registered User
 
RollingPredFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 632
vCash: 500
You never answered why the league said it should have been called a penalty I see, well that's because they aren't looking at fuzzy pics at the angle you want. Look its a dirty cheapshot, the league didn't suspend Burrows, you guys won and got away with it so be happy and buzz off

RollingPredFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2008, 09:28 AM
  #71
jstreet
Smashville
 
jstreet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: smashville
Country: United States
Posts: 7,984
vCash: 4050
who is the crazy one here:

a) the canuck who cant see the situation logically
b) the person who expects the canuck to see the situation logically





I kid, I kid.

jstreet is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 05:12 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.