HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Prospects
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Prospects Discuss hockey prospects from all over the world and the NHL Draft.

LW Max Domi (2013, 12th, ARZ)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-22-2011, 10:22 AM
  #151
static80
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,070
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edges7 View Post
There's a myopia that exists north of the border that you've stated and questioned perfectly. The object of a check is to separate player from puck not player from game. The hit on Murphy brought out the worst of that sentiment as did the Pelletier hit on Peter Sakaris a week or so before.

That said, Domi appears to have done everything right here. At some point, if the league is going to implement suspensions for hits for no reason other than they are too hard but otherwise legal then the rules need to be tweaked to reflect that.

There was a time that "Boarding" was called for very hard open ice hits. I last saw that call made when I was interning with the NJ Devils in 1995. In Game 5 in Pittsburgh, Kjell Samuelson absolutely crushed Tommy Albelin open ice and was given a double minor for "Boarding".
I agree.
And yes, I also agree that the Domi hit was clean.
I remember the Samuelson hit on Albelin and you are right, that is the last time I remember it being called as well.

static80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 10:32 AM
  #152
newfy
Registered User
 
newfy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edges7 View Post
There's a myopia that exists north of the border that you've stated and questioned perfectly. The object of a check is to separate player from puck not player from game. The hit on Murphy brought out the worst of that sentiment as did the Pelletier hit on Peter Sakaris a week or so before.

That said, Domi appears to have done everything right here. At some point, if the league is going to implement suspensions for hits for no reason other than they are too hard but otherwise legal then the rules need to be tweaked to reflect that.

There was a time that "Boarding" was called for very hard open ice hits. I last saw that call made when I was interning with the NJ Devils in 1995. In Game 5 in Pittsburgh, Kjell Samuelson absolutely crushed Tommy Albelin open ice and was given a double minor for "Boarding".
Separating a guy from the play is the point of a hit. Wh knock him off the puck when you can within the rules knock him on his ass and he wont be able to back check as fast or get in on a cycle etc?

newfy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 10:39 AM
  #153
Defensive Forward
Registered User
 
Defensive Forward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 570
vCash: 500
Beauty hit by Domi, in the games I've watched this year he's definitely been worth the hype.

Defensive Forward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 10:42 AM
  #154
tsnTpoint
Registered User
 
tsnTpoint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 859
vCash: 500
Not sure if I would exactly call this hit "clean" by the new standards.

Watch the hit at the 40 second mark and tell me what you see as the first point of contact. To me I see the victims head whip back as Domi's first point of contact is a shoulder into the other players jaw.

Therefore the brunt force of this hit was absorbed through the head.

tsnTpoint is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 10:47 AM
  #155
Afro Thunder*
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5,653
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsnTpoint View Post
Not sure if I would exactly call this hit "clean" by the new standards.

Watch the hit at the 40 second mark and tell me what you see as the first point of contact. To me I see the victims head whip back as Domi's first point of contact is a shoulder into the other players jaw.

Therefore the brunt force of this hit was absorbed through the head.
The kid had his head down in open ice in the neutral zone, It wasn't a blindeside hit, Domi came straight at him and the kid should have had his head up.

Afro Thunder* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 10:49 AM
  #156
static80
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,070
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Afro Thunder View Post
The kid had his head down in open ice in the neutral zone, It wasn't a blindeside hit, Domi came straight at him and the kid should have had his head up.
I agree with this. The kid had his head down, thats a mistake in hockey.

static80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 10:52 AM
  #157
FrozenJagrt
Registered User
 
FrozenJagrt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,937
vCash: 500
No question that a player`s health should be given priority. But hockey is a contact sport, don`t play a contact sport if you don`t want to risk injury

FrozenJagrt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 11:10 AM
  #158
Edges7
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: MA
Country: United States
Posts: 866
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by newfy View Post
Separating a guy from the play is the point of a hit.
Regaining possession of the puck is the point of a hit. You do that by separating player from puck. Play in hockey is a whistle to whistle continuum. Noone on the ice is ever out of the play.

Quote:
...when you can within the rules knock him on his ass and he wont be able to back check as fast or get in on a cycle etc?
I stated I believe that the hit is within the rules. My point is that it's important that these kind of hits be the exception not the rule.

I haven't broken down the video yet as I was able to with the Pelletier hit - which confirmed my belief that the first point of contact was elbow to head. From watching this several times, I believe that Domi got Garvus square on the upper-body and the head snap is simply the rest of the body going along with the forcce of the hit.

Edges7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 11:11 AM
  #159
Afro Thunder*
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5,653
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by static80 View Post
I agree with this. The kid had his head down, thats a mistake in hockey.
Sorry but this is not figure skating, if you are skating with your head down in the neutral zone and the guy comes from straight ahead and makes contact with you in time, that's just a clean hockey hit, if you can't take it then play something else.

If it was behind the net or Domi came from a blindside position where the kid couldn't see him if he had his head up then sure yeah that's illegal.

Afro Thunder* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 11:26 AM
  #160
Sanderson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 5,153
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Afro Thunder View Post
Sorry but this is not figure skating, if you are skating with your head down in the neutral zone and the guy comes from straight ahead and makes contact with you in time, that's just a clean hockey hit, if you can't take it then play something else.

If it was behind the net or Domi came from a blindside position where the kid couldn't see him if he had his head up then sure yeah that's illegal.
Did you actually read what you quoted?
Someone agrees with you, and you act as if he said the complete opposite.

Hit looks clean, but the outcome certainly isn't very nice. Injuries happen though, not much you can do about that. Obviously you could try not to steamroll an opponent if he has his head down, but it's not like Domi was looking to destroy Gavrus here.

Sanderson is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 11:41 AM
  #161
static80
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,070
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Afro Thunder View Post
Sorry but this is not figure skating, if you are skating with your head down in the neutral zone and the guy comes from straight ahead and makes contact with you in time, that's just a clean hockey hit, if you can't take it then play something else.

If it was behind the net or Domi came from a blindside position where the kid couldn't see him if he had his head up then sure yeah that's illegal.
Once again, I agree with you.

static80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 11:44 AM
  #162
static80
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,070
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by newfy View Post
Separating a guy from the play is the point of a hit. Wh knock him off the puck when you can within the rules knock him on his ass and he wont be able to back check as fast or get in on a cycle etc?
Incorrect.

Seperating a player from the puck is the correct answer.
If a player attempts to seperate a player from the play it is called interference.

Let's not pretend otherwise, it just drags out a conversation that doesn't fit the rules of hockey.

static80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 11:49 AM
  #163
ottawah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,820
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by static80 View Post
Like I said, health of the players comes first, even at the expense of physical play.
You cannot be seriously advocating the way a game is played over something as serious as a human beings health, are you?
The nature of the game dictates that people will get hurt, its that simple. People have been paralyzed playing hockey without even as much as contact from another player, and many players have gotten hurt with minimal contact. The fact is ANY contact could result is a very serious injury.

So the question back is are you advocating that all physical contact is removed from the game because there is a chance it could hurt someone? If so, I'd argue you cannot have even a normal game because of the speed and enclosed area, contact is inevitable. And it may cause injury. Therefore having more than one player on the ice at a time would pose a health risk.

To me the rules as they stand are clear cut. Hits within the rules will happen, if you don't like it, take up lawn bowling. Hits outside of the rules should be heavily punished.

ottawah is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 11:54 AM
  #164
Billy Madison*
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,101
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by static80 View Post
Like I said, health of the players comes first, even at the expense of physical play.
You cannot be seriously advocating the way a game is played over something as serious as a human beings health, are you?

Because if that is the case, I wouldn't know what to say, just jaw dropping, and that is being very, very nice about it.
It's a game, it's nothing more than entertainment value.
No it doesn't other wise there would be no contact in hockey. It's like saying there should be a speed limit of 100KM per hour in NASCAR because otherwise someone might get hurt.

It's a physical game, the player playing know it, the people watching know it. Suck it up.

Billy Madison* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 12:00 PM
  #165
ekcut
Golden Ticket Winner
 
ekcut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,029
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to ekcut
Quote:
Originally Posted by static80 View Post
Like I said, health of the players comes first, even at the expense of physical play.
You cannot be seriously advocating the way a game is played over something as serious as a human beings health, are you?

Because if that is the case, I wouldn't know what to say, just jaw dropping, and that is being very, very nice about it.
It's a game, it's nothing more than entertainment value.
So MMA, Boxing, snowmobiling, skydiving, rock climbing, car racing, crossing the street...should all be banned as well....because all activities have significant risks involved.
As long as all participants are aware and accept the risks, then so be it.
To many people, 'the risk' is what makes it fun to play!

ekcut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 12:02 PM
  #166
static80
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,070
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Madison View Post
No it doesn't other wise there would be no contact in hockey. It's like saying there should be a speed limit of 100KM per hour in NASCAR because otherwise someone might get hurt.

It's a physical game, the player playing know it, the people watching know it. Suck it up.
No one is stating otherwise.
You must have just learned to take quotes out of context and are trying it out, no?
Because if you quoted my comment in it's entirety, you would have put the first line in there as well, you know, where I stated some of the comments were dissappointing.

I'll guess you enjoy selective quoting.

static80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 12:02 PM
  #167
static80
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,070
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ekcut View Post
So MMA, Boxing, snowmobiling, skydiving, rock climbing, car racing, crossing the street...should all be banned as well....because all activities have significant risks involved.
As long as all participants are aware and accept the risks, then so be it.
To many people, 'the risk' is what makes it fun to play!
Who stated banning anything?

Once again, out of context. Nice try though.

static80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 04:48 PM
  #168
newfy
Registered User
 
newfy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by static80 View Post
Incorrect.

Seperating a player from the puck is the correct answer.
If a player attempts to seperate a player from the play it is called interference.

Let's not pretend otherwise, it just drags out a conversation that doesn't fit the rules of hockey.
Obviously Im talking about as long as the player has the puck.

Whats better, to separate a player by bumping him off the puck for 2 seconds lightly, or putting him on his ass which takes away all his momentum and he takes way longer to get back into the play?

Thats why youre allowed to finish a check even if the puck is gone, its about eliminating the player as an option for the other team, not just getting the puck from him

newfy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 05:21 PM
  #169
static80
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,070
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by newfy View Post
Obviously Im talking about as long as the player has the puck.

Whats better, to separate a player by bumping him off the puck for 2 seconds lightly, or putting him on his ass which takes away all his momentum and he takes way longer to get back into the play?

Thats why youre allowed to finish a check even if the puck is gone, its about eliminating the player as an option for the other team, not just getting the puck from him
Your allowed to "finish a check" as you call it not due to the momentum take away on the player that was checked, but the momentum of the player doing a checking.
Common sense man.......you don't stop on a dime while flowing in one direction on the ice while hitting another player.

And as for your question on what is better, I have never stated checking be removed from hockey, or even the physical game itself. If you go back to my first post in this thread, I said I was dissappointed in a couple of the comments above mine.

static80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 05:37 PM
  #170
The Lollipop King
4th Line = all heart
 
The Lollipop King's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 583
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by static80 View Post
Your allowed to "finish a check" as you call it not due to the momentum take away on the player that was checked, but the momentum of the player doing a checking.
Common sense man.......you don't stop on a dime while flowing in one direction on the ice while hitting another player.

And as for your question on what is better, I have never stated checking be removed from hockey, or even the physical game itself. If you go back to my first post in this thread, I said I was dissappointed in a couple of the comments above mine.
You have never played hockey, atleast not at any significant level. I can tell this by your comments.

Hockey is a physical sports, thats why I love playing. I know the dangers involved, but life is full of danger.

The Lollipop King is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 05:51 PM
  #171
insider
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,815
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moskau View Post
I don't think Gavrus is cut out for Hockey. He really wasn't hit that hard but choose to lay on the ice for 10 minutes.
Although I don't agree with the second bit (if I understand correctly, he was knocked out), I can't help but wonder if there's a hint of truth to the first part of that statement. I've only seen Gavrus once this year and in that game as well, one of the main things I noticed was his tendency to get into dangerous positions. I can't help but think to myself that this kid is consistently one hit away from a major injury.

In that other game, it was a play behind the net in the offensive zone, where as he saw a player (I believe Cody Ceci?) approaching for the hit, he turned towards the boards. It was too late for Ceci to stop his momentum, but he did slow down and try not to hit him. Gavrus was injured on the play, but not as badly as he could've been was it not for Ceci's heady play.

I'd like to see if anyone else, in Owen Sound or elsewhere, has seen him put himself in dangerous positions.

insider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 05:58 PM
  #172
static80
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,070
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lollipop King View Post
You have never played hockey, atleast not at any significant level. I can tell this by your comments.

Hockey is a physical sports, thats why I love playing. I know the dangers involved, but life is full of danger.
Presumption on your part that I've never played hockey, even at a significant level.
Which leads me to my next question, what do you presume to consider a significant level?

Also, no one has stated hockey is not a physical sport, and I am happy you enjoy the sport and know the dangers involved, but none of this has anything to do with the price of peas in China.

I take it you like to create conflict in a conversation for the sole purpose of creating conflict.

static80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 06:04 PM
  #173
static80
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,070
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottawah View Post
The nature of the game dictates that people will get hurt, its that simple. People have been paralyzed playing hockey without even as much as contact from another player, and many players have gotten hurt with minimal contact. The fact is ANY contact could result is a very serious injury.

So the question back is are you advocating that all physical contact is removed from the game because there is a chance it could hurt someone? If so, I'd argue you cannot have even a normal game because of the speed and enclosed area, contact is inevitable. And it may cause injury. Therefore having more than one player on the ice at a time would pose a health risk.

To me the rules as they stand are clear cut. Hits within the rules will happen, if you don't like it, take up lawn bowling. Hits outside of the rules should be heavily punished.
No, I am not advocating physical contact be removed.
If anyone bothers to read what I post, I actually stated clean hit for Domi.

What kicked this off was my statement on the dissappointment of a couple of posters before my original post and to remind them that the health of the player should always come first.....i.e. the comments on attempting to put the "good, he clobbered him and he deserved it" type of comments I saw above me.

I believe thats why people are bent out of shape, they didn't bother to put my "dissappointed in a couple of comments" statement together with the safety one.

It doesn't matter really, it shouldn't rile anyone up when I actually agreed it was a good, clean hit.

static80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 08:26 PM
  #174
ekcut
Golden Ticket Winner
 
ekcut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,029
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to ekcut
Quote:
Originally Posted by static80 View Post
Who stated banning anything?

Once again, out of context. Nice try though.
Ok....so what is your plan if you do not want to ban hitting?
If hitting is so jaw-droppingly horrible, and anyone who thinks other wise is a victim of your shaming and disgust...then what is your alternative?

The rest of us aren't smart enough to see your genius.

ekcut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 08:29 PM
  #175
King Woodballs
**** HFJets
 
King Woodballs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Your Mind
Posts: 34,183
vCash: 375
1) keep your head up
2) that looked shoulder to shoulder
so nothing should come about this imo

King Woodballs 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 10:32 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.