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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
