HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

No Suspension for Kronwall

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-07-2012, 05:12 PM
  #126
giraffywaffy
Registered User
 
giraffywaffy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
Shame on hypocrites.
I guess you thought wrong. Repeating "this is the kind of hit they want to get rid of" looks sillier and sillier because if they did, Kronwall would have face discipline. Instead, they made a ruling on it the very next morning

giraffywaffy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2012, 05:12 PM
  #127
achdumeingute
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NorCal
Posts: 2,262
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
It shouldn't have been. If there was 100% agreement on that, we wouldn't be talking about this.

Kronwall has a history of timing his hits to go exactly for this kind of devastating impact to the head of a vulnerable player. I thought that's what the NHL has been saying they wanted to get rid of. Oh well.
Heh. I see it as 100% clear as day. Watch violations of rule 48 and I see the differences.

achdumeingute is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2012, 05:15 PM
  #128
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 37,839
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by giraffywaffy View Post
I guess they're not because it's a clean hit and it's being promoted on their website as a clean hit.
Which is why it's annoying, because it's the exact opposite of what they've been preaching.

__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2012, 05:23 PM
  #129
giraffywaffy
Registered User
 
giraffywaffy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
Which is why it's annoying, because it's the exact opposite of what they've been preaching.
They're preaching on eliminating targeted headshots. I don't know why it's so difficult to differentiate and separate the two. Inadvertent hits to the head happen. It's a fast sport. Last night was an unfortunate case of it.

Tons of analysts and puck heads in the media are calling it a clean hit. Jagr said it's hockey and it's clean. Briere said it's unfortunate, but its' hockey and you can't get rid of that hit because Kronwall was stepping up like a defenseman should. How does that make you feel that you're essentially arguing a losing battle?

I understand where you're coming from since you feel like there's a lack of consistency with regards to what is illegal and what is legal, but this isn't the first of it's type of hit that DID NOT result in a suspension. It's not a groundbreaking decision. It was actually a rather quick decision because of the comparables before it.

Simple as that. It sucks that Voracek got smashed and became injured. You can't protect everything in hockey and in this case, it's clear that Kronwall didn't seek the head out. Just seeing the image of Voracek lunging forward toward the puck and meeting the back of his shoulder as Kronwall stands straight up is enough evidence to end this. If he had gotten him from the side or went upward, certainly it's bad, but he came head on like a truck

giraffywaffy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2012, 05:24 PM
  #130
Flyerfan4life
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Richmond BC, Canada
Country: England
Posts: 12,053
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
Which is why it's annoying, because it's the exact opposite of what they've been preaching.
dont worry if the offending player wasnt a red wing he would have been suspended..

sure enuf another player on another team is gunna do this same move, and watch the end result..

100% he's getting a call and some games.. its coming you watch.

Flyerfan4life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2012, 05:26 PM
  #131
hockeyfreak7
Registered User
 
hockeyfreak7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Charlottesville
Posts: 8,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
Which is why it's annoying, because it's the exact opposite of what they've been preaching.
You keep saying this but that doesn't make it true. Our own Flyers players, including Jake himself, have said that the hit was clean according to the rule book and their understanding of it.

Beef, you keep repeating this line, but the only point you are getting across is that you simply don't understand what the NHL has been preaching the last two years.

You don't understand the NHL and its ruling, but that doesn't mean the NHL or its rulings contradict each other.

I don't understand String Theory, but that doesn't mean that its a bunch of garbage and doesn't make sense...

This hit is clean by NHL standards. NHL players, including our own Flyers players have said as much and the NHL's head disciplinarian has as well. It seems that a majority of fans see it the same way also- it is clear to me that people want to blame what they don't understand on the NHL, even when most people seem to understand the logic behind such rulings as these.

hockeyfreak7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2012, 05:32 PM
  #132
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 37,839
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by giraffywaffy View Post
They're preaching on eliminating targeted headshots. I don't know why it's so difficult to differentiate and separate the two. Inadvertent hits to the head happen. It's a fast sport. Last night was an unfortunate case of it.

Tons of analysts and puck heads in the media are calling it a clean hit. Jagr said it's hockey and it's clean. Briere said it's unfortunate, but its' hockey and you can't get rid of that hit because Kronwall was stepping up like a defenseman should. How does that make you feel that you're essentially arguing a losing battle?

I understand where you're coming from since you feel like there's a lack of consistency with regards to what is illegal and what is legal, but this isn't the first of it's type of hit that DID NOT result in a suspension. It's not a groundbreaking decision. It was actually a rather quick decision because of the comparables before it.

Simple as that. It sucks that Voracek got smashed and became injured. You can't protect everything in hockey and in this case, it's clear that Kronwall didn't seek the head out. Just seeing the image of Voracek lunging forward toward the puck and meeting the back of his shoulder as Kronwall stands straight up is enough evidence to end this. If he had gotten him from the side or went upward, certainly it's bad, but he came head on like a truck
Like I said, I'm fine with it if this is the clear and established standard from here on out, even though this runs contrary to what the NHL has been saying publicly for a couple years. However, I have zero faith that the league will manage that.

Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2012, 05:36 PM
  #133
Damaged Goods
Registered User
 
Damaged Goods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by giraffywaffy View Post
They're preaching on eliminating targeted headshots. I don't know why it's so difficult to differentiate and separate the two. Inadvertent hits to the head happen. It's a fast sport. Last night was an unfortunate case of it.

Tons of analysts and puck heads in the media are calling it a clean hit. Jagr said it's hockey and it's clean. Briere said it's unfortunate, but its' hockey and you can't get rid of that hit because Kronwall was stepping up like a defenseman should. How does that make you feel that you're essentially arguing a losing battle?

I understand where you're coming from since you feel like there's a lack of consistency with regards to what is illegal and what is legal, but this isn't the first of it's type of hit that DID NOT result in a suspension. It's not a groundbreaking decision. It was actually a rather quick decision because of the comparables before it.

Simple as that. It sucks that Voracek got smashed and became injured. You can't protect everything in hockey and in this case, it's clear that Kronwall didn't seek the head out. Just seeing the image of Voracek lunging forward toward the puck and meeting the back of his shoulder as Kronwall stands straight up is enough evidence to end this. If he had gotten him from the side or went upward, certainly it's bad, but he came head on like a truck
Tough to say that it's inadvertent -- or at the very least not reckless -- of Kronwall when he already has carbon copies of this hit on Heatley and Havlat on his head-shot resume.

Damaged Goods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2012, 05:38 PM
  #134
Damaged Goods
Registered User
 
Damaged Goods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfreak7 View Post
You keep saying this but that doesn't make it true. Our own Flyers players, including Jake himself, have said that the hit was clean according to the rule book and their understanding of it.

Beef, you keep repeating this line, but the only point you are getting across is that you simply don't understand what the NHL has been preaching the last two years.

You don't understand the NHL and its ruling, but that doesn't mean the NHL or its rulings contradict each other.

I don't understand String Theory, but that doesn't mean that its a bunch of garbage and doesn't make sense...

This hit is clean by NHL standards. NHL players, including our own Flyers players have said as much and the NHL's head disciplinarian has as well. It seems that a majority of fans see it the same way also- it is clear to me that people want to blame what they don't understand on the NHL, even when most people seem to understand the logic behind such rulings as these.
Voracek's reasoning in his statement was based on "keep your head up." Show me where it says that anywhere in the rulebook.

Damaged Goods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2012, 05:39 PM
  #135
Swiper the Fox
Registered User
 
Swiper the Fox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 349
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
Like I said, I'm fine with it if this is the clear and established standard from here on out, even though this runs contrary to what the NHL has been saying publicly for a couple years. However, I have zero faith that the league will manage that.
the other problem is not even with the actual hit
its much like this thread and how different people decipher the hit
hard to make the 'right' decision since there is so many different valid points of view

Swiper the Fox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2012, 05:41 PM
  #136
Bluepee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Az
Country: United States
Posts: 67
vCash: 500
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SX0NLOPFhI

dirty... but also cleans the pallate

Bluepee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2012, 05:42 PM
  #137
hockeyfreak7
Registered User
 
hockeyfreak7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Charlottesville
Posts: 8,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
Voracek's reasoning in his statement was based on "keep your head up." Show me where it says that anywhere in the rulebook.
From rule 48: "...whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position..."


It's pretty obvious that a player who puts his head down and makes himself unsuspecting applies under this phrase.

Voracek made himself vulnerable and he quite clearly understands.

hockeyfreak7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2012, 05:44 PM
  #138
Damaged Goods
Registered User
 
Damaged Goods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfreak7 View Post
From rule 48: "...whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position..."


It's pretty obvious that a player who puts his head down and makes himself unsuspecting applies under this phrase.

Voracek made himself vulnerable and he quite clearly understands.
"...Immediately prior to the check..."

Damaged Goods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2012, 05:44 PM
  #139
Lurch
Registered User
 
Lurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 200
vCash: 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by giraffywaffy View Post
Did you even watch the video explanation of legal hits to the head per rule 48?
Why is this Red Wings guy constantly trolling the Flyers board?

Lurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2012, 05:45 PM
  #140
Crossbar Ping
Registered User
 
Crossbar Ping's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 800
vCash: 500
The hit was targetted to the head, malicious, and intent to injure.


WHAT ELSE DO YOU ****ING WANT SHANAHAN! Guess he still thinks he is wearing the red and white too or something.

Such horse ****. Should be MORE than 5 games! Let alone NOTHING. JESUS.

Crossbar Ping is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2012, 05:46 PM
  #141
hockeyfreak7
Registered User
 
hockeyfreak7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Charlottesville
Posts: 8,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
"...Immediately prior to the check..."
And that's exactly what Voracek did...

He put his head down and leaned over immediately prior to the hit.

You'd do best to take a look at the frame by frame:

http://www.nightmareonhelmstreet.com...medium=twitter

Again, all of that took place in less than one single second.

hockeyfreak7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2012, 05:47 PM
  #142
giraffywaffy
Registered User
 
giraffywaffy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
Why is this Red Wings guy constantly trolling the Flyers board?
Eh, sorry if you think that. Apologies if I made it seem as such. I'm only curious as to how someone can still think it's not within the rules after seeing Shanahan explain how such a hit is

giraffywaffy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2012, 05:47 PM
  #143
hockeyfreak7
Registered User
 
hockeyfreak7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Charlottesville
Posts: 8,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
Why is this Red Wings guy constantly trolling the Flyers board?
Because everything he's said thus far has been 100% correct and he's done so respectfully and patiently.

hockeyfreak7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2012, 05:47 PM
  #144
Crymson
Fire Holland
 
Crymson's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,296
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crossbar Ping View Post
The hit was targetted to the head, malicious, and intent to injure.


WHAT ELSE DO YOU ****ING WANT SHANAHAN! Guess he still thinks he is wearing the red and white too or something.

Such horse ****. Should be MORE than 5 games! Let alone NOTHING. JESUS.
The bottom line is that your best player and the guy who himself took the hit have declared the hit to be clean, as has the NHL. If you want to call Giroux and Voracek liars or suggest that they lack expertise in this area, be my guest.

Crymson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2012, 05:50 PM
  #145
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 37,839
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfreak7 View Post
And that's exactly what Voracek did...

He put his head down and leaned over immediately prior to the hit.

You'd do best to take a look at the frame by frame:

http://www.nightmareonhelmstreet.com...medium=twitter

Again, all of that took place in less than one single second.
You'd do better to watch this:



Voracek was vulnerable well before the hit. Kronwall saw that and jumped in. Kronwall wasn't closing in, only to have Voracek duck at the last second. It was predatory, and resulted in a headshot.

But apparently the NHL is perfectly OK with that now, so whatever

Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2012, 05:52 PM
  #146
giraffywaffy
Registered User
 
giraffywaffy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
You'd do better to watch this:



Voracek was vulnerable well before the hit. Kronwall saw that and jumped in. Kronwall wasn't closing in, only to have Voracek duck at the last second. It was predatory, and resulted in a headshot.
There is nothing illegal about checking a vulnerable player. Kronwall had a right to step into him at that moment. The issue at hand is the vulnerability of his head, which in the frame by frame, followed by the video, shows how quickly and suddenly it unfolds in what I believe is immediately prior to contact.

giraffywaffy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2012, 05:53 PM
  #147
hockeyfreak7
Registered User
 
hockeyfreak7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Charlottesville
Posts: 8,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
You'd do better to watch this:



Voracek was vulnerable well before the hit. Kronwall saw that and jumped in. Kronwall wasn't closing in, only to have Voracek duck at the last second. It was predatory, and resulted in a headshot.
Kronwall was committed to the hit well before Jake put himself (specifically, his head) in a vulnerable position.

From here:



Kronwall was lining Jake up with NO specific target other than to complete a body check.


To here:



Jake presents Kronwall with no target except the head. Kronwall has already been 100% committed to the hit.


The elapsed time between those two points in time is about a quarter of a second.

hockeyfreak7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2012, 05:55 PM
  #148
Crossbar Ping
Registered User
 
Crossbar Ping's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 800
vCash: 500
One day vulnerability to the head is a major issue and something players have to avoid,

the next day is fair game to potentially ruin someones career.

Awesome.

Crossbar Ping is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2012, 05:57 PM
  #149
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 37,839
vCash: 156
So he committed to a hit on a vulnerable player, while it was obvious he was vulnerable...and hit him while he was vulnerable. We agree.

Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2012, 06:01 PM
  #150
giraffywaffy
Registered User
 
giraffywaffy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
So he committed to a hit on a vulnerable player, while it was obvious he was vulnerable...and hit him while he was vulnerable. We agree.
Yes. Which is legal.

The issue comes with the head, which became vulnerable while both players became committed to making a hockey move up each others ice.

Really, just unfortunate. Clean. Unfortunate. Nasty.

giraffywaffy 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 10:15 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.