HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Chicago Blackhawks
Notices

Where's the prefix for ********?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-18-2011, 10:53 PM
  #51
elriz
Registered User
 
elriz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,298
vCash: 500
as a Canucks fan, i was very surprised there was no suspension.

just like you guys, i wish i knew what hits were legal or not in the NHL anymore. trust us, we have been burned by this too (Getz play, Malkin on Mitchell last year). hope Seabs is okay long term.

elriz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2011, 11:15 PM
  #52
Knuckles Muldoon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 62
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaub View Post
Unless someone can pin Torres down I'm not exactly sure how Scott's going to catch him
'Nuck fan here.

If someone (Smith) were to grab Raffi by the throat and give him an entirely severe within-an-inch-of-his-life beating, I'd be good with that. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Knuckles Muldoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2011, 11:38 PM
  #53
sixwings
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 464
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hansen View Post
Well, I don't see any reason not to just repost what I said in the other thread where you posted this (horribly inaccurate) picture of yours.

"Blindside, made up of the two words "blind" and "side." Illuminating, no?

Assuming you have learned what the word "side" means...
"Blind" here refers to what the player cannot see based on the position of his head or has no means of expecting.

The pass came from Seabrook's right. His head turned from a position of about 60 degrees right (do you know your angles?) to a position perpendicular to the boards just as he got hit.
Considering how fast the game moves, Seabrook never had anything close to enough time to process that Torres was even near him.

So, let's review.
Seabrook, for the duration of the play, was looking to the RIGHT. He got hit from the LEFT.

Look at that! It was a blindside hit after all.

Go away, honestly. There's just no talking to some 'Nucks fans. There are a few on here that are fair and that I respect, but sadly they are not in the majority.
Have fun with the rest of your team's playoffs, however long they may last."
Do you play hockey? My guess is not in a physical/checking league. As someone pointed out in a different thread, and as I was taught in juniors, if you can see his logo, you destroy him (if he has the puck).

Just because the player wasn't looking doesn't mean it was a blind side. If a player is looking down at the ice does that make him unhittable because he can't see the other players?

It came from the front, if Seabrook had been aware on the ice he could have dodged it, putting torres out of position and made a good play. He didn't have the ice awareness and got hit for it. Nothing wrong with that.

Rookie mistake.

sixwings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2011, 11:50 PM
  #54
enforcersrule
Registered User
 
enforcersrule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Illinois
Country: United States
Posts: 1,434
vCash: 500
Again (still) with the Vancouver fans... seriously?!

Seabs wasn't skating forward with his head down and the puck in front of him when Torres hit him. Like it or not, the onus is as much on Torres - if not more - as it is on Seabs. Seabrook was LOOKING BACK FOR A PASS which had NOT YET MADE IT TO HIM when Torres leveled him. Torres made no attempt to go for the puck - only to dump Seabs on the ice.

It was a nasty hit on that account alone, nevermind that he targeted Seabs' head in the process.

Had Seabrook turned his back to accept the puck, rather than simply turning his head, there would be ZERO question on either side (well, except for the ridiculously blind homers) that this was a bad hit... the fact that people can still defend it AND that the NHL made the decision not to suspend Torres (AGAIN) makes me do

enforcersrule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2011, 12:31 AM
  #55
lefty2time*
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,109
vCash: 500
There was no elbow to head....just shoulder to head. It was not blind side....Torres came straight at him. Seabrook just looked the wrong way at the wrong time.There WAS interference...and he got a 2 min penalty. I honestly think a 2 min penalty was all he deserved.


If you have beef with the league for not being consisent thats cool. Also...you can hate Torres for not showing respect to Seabrook becuase i dont think its cool that you target the head.
But i think that according to the rules..only blindside hits to the head are worthy of a suspension.

lefty2time* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2011, 12:34 AM
  #56
enforcersrule
Registered User
 
enforcersrule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Illinois
Country: United States
Posts: 1,434
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sixwings View Post
Clearly your interpretation is different from the people who created the term. I wonder who's wrong?

And yet it's the Canuck fans?

If you can see the logo, it's a go ahead. Torres could see the logo. He went ahead.

It was a clean hit.

Stop crying.
And what term would that be? I didn't mention any "terms" so I'm honestly not certain what you're talking about.

As for "crying" and it being a "clean hit" - why do the majority of the league's GM's disagree on it being a clean hit? The fact that he was PENALIZED for the hit and the fact that Seabrook never touched the puck - NO, it was NOT a clean hit.

Take off the homer glasses.

On that account alone, it was not a "clean" hit. Torres never made a play for the puck and instead steamrolled a guy who never saw him coming AND who never touched the puck. Perhaps you need an education on what constitutes a "clean" hit?

enforcersrule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2011, 01:00 AM
  #57
LickTheEnvelope
Decertified Poster
 
LickTheEnvelope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 25,968
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hansen View Post
Well, I don't see any reason not to just repost what I said in the other thread where you posted this (horribly inaccurate) picture of yours.

"Blindside, made up of the two words "blind" and "side." Illuminating, no?

Assuming you have learned what the word "side" means...
"Blind" here refers to what the player cannot see based on the position of his head or has no means of expecting.

The pass came from Seabrook's right. His head turned from a position of about 60 degrees right (do you know your angles?) to a position perpendicular to the boards just as he got hit.
Considering how fast the game moves, Seabrook never had anything close to enough time to process that Torres was even near him.

So, let's review.
Seabrook, for the duration of the play, was looking to the RIGHT. He got hit from the LEFT.

Look at that! It was a blindside hit after all.

Go away, honestly. There's just no talking to some 'Nucks fans. There are a few on here that are fair and that I respect, but sadly they are not in the majority.
Have fun with the rest of your team's playoffs, however long they may last."
I'm not sure why people keep insisting this is blind-side and don't just look at the rules.

Video on headshots that are illegal V legal sent to NHL GMs:



2:53, an example of a legal shoulder-check to the head.

As it is described "the player skating north south has to be aware of where he is and who is on the ice..."

The NHL has also made it clear that coming around behind the net is considered a "north-south" situation.

Even if you want to argue it was POC on the head by the NHLs Rule 48 mandate it was a legal headshot.

The NHL also made it clear it wasn't charging or directed at the head from the review they went over (Torres stopped skating and coasted into the hit from well away, pulled his arms in before the hit).

LickTheEnvelope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2011, 01:05 AM
  #58
lefty2time*
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,109
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by enforcersrule View Post
And what term would that be? I didn't mention any "terms" so I'm honestly not certain what you're talking about.

As for "crying" and it being a "clean hit" - why do the majority of the league's GM's disagree on it being a clean hit? The fact that he was PENALIZED for the hit and the fact that Seabrook never touched the puck - NO, it was NOT a clean hit.

Take off the homer glasses.

On that account alone, it was not a "clean" hit. Torres never made a play for the puck and instead steamrolled a guy who never saw him coming AND who never touched the puck. Perhaps you need an education on what constitutes a "clean" hit?
No it was not a "clean" hit if you include interference making it not clean. There was clear interference...and he got a penalty for it.

When you look at the hit...it is a clean hit in terms of what is and isnt suspendable..then it is totally clean. Shoulder to head...and not a blindside hit.
Seems pretty cut and dry to me :S

I do wanna say that Torres maybe didnt respect Seabrook...and if Seabrook lines up Torres and drills him shoulder to head north south type play..so be it..live by the sword you die by the sword

lefty2time* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2011, 01:07 AM
  #59
Upoil
Registered User
 
Upoil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 428
vCash: 500
Boarderline. But according to the DVD legal.

Upoil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2011, 01:31 AM
  #60
Rydgar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Fiji
Posts: 430
vCash: 500
As a Canuck fan I thought that was suspendable based on previous suspension examples and I'm kind of disappointed it didn't happen. Last thing I want is a Chicago cheapshot that injures one of our key players.

Rydgar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2011, 01:39 AM
  #61
madgoat33
Registered User
 
madgoat33's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 11,725
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rydgar View Post
As a Canuck fan I thought that was suspendable based on previous suspension examples and I'm kind of disappointed it didn't happen. Last thing I want is a Chicago cheapshot that injures one of our key players.
I don't think you should worry too much about that. I don't think Q's one to let something like that happen. Hawks may play way more physical, but I don't see any cheap shots on the horizon, unless it's on torres.

madgoat33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2011, 02:14 AM
  #62
YouCantYandleThis*
Moustache Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by madgoat33 View Post
I don't think you should worry too much about that. I don't think Q's one to let something like that happen. Hawks may play way more physical, but I don't see any cheap shots on the horizon, unless it's on torres.
Honestly...I can live with that..

YouCantYandleThis* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2011, 06:35 AM
  #63
Chris Hansen
Team Tyrion
 
Chris Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 9,648
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sixwings View Post
Do you play hockey? My guess is not in a physical/checking league. As someone pointed out in a different thread, and as I was taught in juniors, if you can see his logo, you destroy him (if he has the puck).

Just because the player wasn't looking doesn't mean it was a blind side. If a player is looking down at the ice does that make him unhittable because he can't see the other players?

It came from the front, if Seabrook had been aware on the ice he could have dodged it, putting torres out of position and made a good play. He didn't have the ice awareness and got hit for it. Nothing wrong with that.

Rookie mistake.
I've already talked this through with a few (more respectable) Vancouver fans so I'm not going to beat this dead horse again.

"Rookie mistake"

Chris Hansen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2011, 01:17 PM
  #64
Rob Zepp
Registered User
 
Rob Zepp's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Germany
Country: Germany
Posts: 3,991
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTP View Post
Posters calling for somebody to injure anyone on the Canucks are making me sick. You know what I want to see?

I want to see Seabrook absolutely crush Torres next year with a 100% legal hit. That's what I want.
What would have been better would have been for one Hawk, ANY one Hawk, to have challenged Torres after the hit. Clean or otherwise, a check like that should elicit some sort of physical response in kind and, if anything, Vancouver just hit harder the rest of the game and it went pretty well un-responded to.

Rob Zepp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2011, 02:43 PM
  #65
BobbyJet
Registered User
 
BobbyJet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Dundas, Ontario. Can
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,703
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catch View Post
There was no elbow to head....just shoulder to head. It was not blind side....Torres came straight at him. Seabrook just looked the wrong way at the wrong time.There WAS interference...and he got a 2 min penalty. I honestly think a 2 min penalty was all he deserved.


If you have beef with the league for not being consisent thats cool. Also...you can hate Torres for not showing respect to Seabrook becuase i dont think its cool that you target the head.
But i think that according to the rules..only blindside hits to the head are worthy of a suspension.
FFS. Seabrook could have been killed with that ILLEGAL hit and you're telling us "it''s not cool to target the head". Well no friggen kidding.


Last edited by Blackhawkswincup: 04-19-2011 at 06:40 PM. Reason: Last comment was not needed
BobbyJet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2011, 02:14 AM
  #66
Verviticus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,898
vCash: 695
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shankill Butcher View Post
This is my biggest issue with the hit as well. In Campbell's statement he said it wasn't Rule 48 or charging, but the fact that it was an interference call on the ice was never addressed. Either he feels it wasn't interference, or just ignored that fact in his ruling. You can't say there's no suspension because it was a "clean hit" on an interference call without some sort of explanation.

And as for the call on the ice, if the ref felt that that hit was an interference penalty, I would really like to know in his opinion what it would take to justify a major.
You can't get suspended or a major for interference unless the target was injured or the ref feels that the hit was sufficiently violent. They aren't going to contradict their refs by making it a suspension if the ref didnt think it was a major.

Incidentally, campbell was on the radio today and didn't even seem to think it was interference, implying that seabrook was in control of the puck, which is objectively wrong.

Verviticus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2011, 02:19 AM
  #67
Bubba88
Toews = Savior
 
Bubba88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bavaria
Country: Germany
Posts: 22,582
vCash: 500
Campbell is stupid and should go away. He doesn't know what he is doing anymore

Bubba88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2011, 03:42 AM
  #68
FiveAndGame
Registered User
 
FiveAndGame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,465
vCash: 500
From a Canucks fan...

Stupid hit by Torres. I don't think that he was trying to hurt the guy, just trying to play physically.

I won't get into whether I thought the hit was legal or illegal. Campbell has screwed basically every team in the NHL, so don't feel as though you guys are solely targeted.

FiveAndGame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2011, 09:22 AM
  #69
madgoat33
Registered User
 
madgoat33's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 11,725
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FiveAndGame View Post
From a Canucks fan...

Stupid hit by Torres. I don't think that he was trying to hurt the guy, just trying to play physically.

I won't get into whether I thought the hit was legal or illegal. Campbell has screwed basically every team in the NHL, so don't feel as though you guys are solely targeted.
Um thanks? Unlike 'nucks fans we don't have a persecution complex, we didn't think we were targeted, just that Campbell is an idiot.

madgoat33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2011, 01:35 PM
  #70
FiveAndGame
Registered User
 
FiveAndGame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by madgoat33 View Post
Um thanks? Unlike 'nucks fans we don't have a persecution complex, we didn't think we were targeted, just that Campbell is an idiot.
lol. Fine, for whatever reason. Lets just agree to dislike Campbell?

FiveAndGame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2011, 04:00 PM
  #71
Chris Hansen
Team Tyrion
 
Chris Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 9,648
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FiveAndGame View Post
lol. Fine, for whatever reason. Lets just agree to dislike Campbell?
Sounds fair.

I think it makes all of us (Hawks fans) a little more sour that the Torres hit is what made Seabrook unable to play in Game 4 and now Game 5. He may well have knocked Seabrook out of the series with a hit to his head.

As the NHL is intent on eliminating concussions and dangerously high hits, I don't understand why some head hits are legal. It's baffling.

Good luck tonight, but not too much

Chris Hansen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2011, 04:24 PM
  #72
HockeySensible
Dat Mullet Doe
 
HockeySensible's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,267
vCash: 500
All hits where the head is targeted should be eliminated from the game. It's quite clear, from watching the tape, that Torres made no efforts whatsoever to avoid contract to Seabrook's head, yet, because the back of the net is considered "Head hunters alley" it's legal?

I could handle Seabrook just getting destroyed, in the chest, with a good hockey hit, but that was disgusting to watch. It was absolutley dirty and warranted a suspension.

The NHL wanted to keep North-South hits in the game, and they should want to do that, I just don't understand how the back of the net can qualify as north-south and not east-west.

Campbell sets horrible precedents, then goes on TSN and cries about how unfair his job is.

HockeySensible is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2011, 07:13 PM
  #73
Ducks DVM
Moderator
There is no grunion
 
Ducks DVM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Long Beach, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 13,994
vCash: 500
Not to pour gasoline on a fire but how do you guys feel about this being worth a game while Torres is skating tonight?



I'm pretty sure the league is run by blind, poop flinging monkeys.

Ducks DVM is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2011, 07:32 PM
  #74
Chris Hansen
Team Tyrion
 
Chris Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 9,648
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducks DVM View Post
Not to pour gasoline on a fire but how do you guys feel about this being worth a game while Torres is skating tonight?



I'm pretty sure the league is run by blind, poop flinging monkeys.
You've got to be kidding me.

That's a suspension and Torres' hit isn't.
That's honestly so ridiculous I don't have anything else to say.

Chris Hansen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2011, 09:14 PM
  #75
Bubba88
Toews = Savior
 
Bubba88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bavaria
Country: Germany
Posts: 22,582
vCash: 500
Ruutu was a 2 min interference call, nothing more

Bubba88 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 12:28 PM.

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.