HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Tarasenko injured [YT#1]

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-22-2013, 10:53 PM
  #626
avsfan09
Registered User
 
avsfan09's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,738
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilthyNote View Post
I would try to explain physics, momentum and kinetic energy here but I think it would be futile.

I am not saying the chest AND head weren't hit but it's pretty darn obvious the head took most of the hit and was the inital point of contact. I am not arguing intent here (which some people don't seem to get through their heads) I am simply saying the head was hit first and took most of the check's energy.

He didn't get the concussion from hitting the ice.
Olver lined him up went to hit the guy and he turned into his shoulder. This is on Tarasenko, sucks that it was a young potential star but deal with it and stop complaining.

avsfan09 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 11:13 PM
  #627
FilthyNote*
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 1,898
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by avsfan09 View Post
Olver lined him up went to hit the guy and he turned into his shoulder. This is on Tarasenko, sucks that it was a young potential star but deal with it and stop complaining.
Okay for the 4th time...

I am NOT arguing whether or not the hit was dirty or clean. I have said this in just about every post I have made in this thread! The only point I have been trying to point out is that his head was in fact hit first and took most of the energy of the check.

If it makes you feel better I will say that Olver had no intent at all to injure and that the check was a bajillion percent clean and that it was completely Tarasenko's fault.

It doesn't change the fact that his head was hit first.

I feel like a broken record.

FilthyNote* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 11:32 PM
  #628
TMI
Mod Supervisor
 
TMI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Posts: 46,845
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilthyNote View Post
I would try to explain physics, momentum and kinetic energy here but I think it would be futile.

I am not saying the chest AND head weren't hit but it's pretty darn obvious the head took most of the hit and was the inital point of contact. I am not arguing intent here (which some people don't seem to get through their heads) I am simply saying the head was hit first and took most of the check's energy.

He didn't get the concussion from hitting the ice.
OK but what does it matter? The head can absorb 90% of the impact and it still be a legal hit. Two criteria are to be met: 1) the head is targeted, and 2) the head is the principle point of contact. When the head was hit and how much energy it took, which I should add has not be measure by anyone, are both immaterial.

__________________
I don't know about cards, but, uh, I think these four-fives beat a full house. Hey banker, cash me out, yo.
TMI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 11:33 PM
  #629
FilthyNote*
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 1,898
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThirdManIn View Post
OK but what does it matter? The head can absorb 90% of the impact and it still be a legal hit. Two criteria are to be met: 1) the head is targeted, and 2) the head is the principle point of contact. When the head was hit and how much energy it took, which I should add has not be measure by anyone, are both immaterial.
And now the fifth time. I am not arguing the legallity or cleanliness / dirtiness of the hit. AT ALL.

FilthyNote* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 11:35 PM
  #630
uncommonsense52
(blue bleeder 24-7)
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 2,323
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilthyNote View Post
And now the fifth time. I am not arguing the legallity or cleanliness / dirtiness of the hit. AT ALL.
I would though.

The NHL has redefined targeted to mean intentional, or less than intentional.

The head was the point of contact.

It meets all the criteria I know of to be a suspension.

uncommonsense52 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 11:35 PM
  #631
TMI
Mod Supervisor
 
TMI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Posts: 46,845
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilthyNote View Post
And now the fifth time. I am not arguing the legallity or cleanliness / dirtiness of the hit. AT ALL.
OK so the hit was mostly to the head, and the head was the first thing hit. Those two things have NOTHING to do with the legality of the hit.

You are now saying nothing.

TMI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 11:40 PM
  #632
FilthyNote*
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 1,898
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThirdManIn View Post
OK so the hit was mostly to the head, and the head was the first thing hit. Those two things have NOTHING to do with the legality of the hit.

You are now saying nothing.
All I was doing was pointing out to the people who were screaming and yelling that the hit was to the chest that they were wrong. I never once tried to argue how clean / dirty / legal the hit is. It apparently was just assumed by everybody who replied to me that if I think the hit was initally to the head it must have been completely intentional, dirty and illegal.

That's just not the case.

FilthyNote* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 11:42 PM
  #633
TMI
Mod Supervisor
 
TMI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Posts: 46,845
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blue bleeder 24-7 View Post
I would though.

The NHL has redefined targeted to mean intentional, or less than intentional.

The head was the point of contact.

It meets all the criteria I know of to be a suspension.
The NHL has kept the same rule as it had last season.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=64063

http://www.nhlofficials.com/_files/_...ok_Updated.pdf (page 72)

Identical rules. Two criteria must be met. The hit must result in the head being the principle point of contact (no), and the head must be targeted (no).

Whether or not the hit should have been delivered (and I argue it should not since it would have been from behind without Taransenko turning), it was not in violation of 48.

TMI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 11:43 PM
  #634
TMI
Mod Supervisor
 
TMI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Posts: 46,845
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilthyNote View Post
All I was doing was pointing out to the people who were screaming and yelling that the hit was to the chest that they were wrong. I never once tried to argue how clean / dirty / legal the hit is. It apparently was just assumed by everybody who replied to me that if I think the hit was initally to the head it must have been completely intentional, dirty and illegal.

That's just not the case.
OK fair, but the hit was initially to the chest. It resulted in a hit to the head.

TMI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 11:45 PM
  #635
Papaspud
Vatman
 
Papaspud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: To the rescue
Posts: 8,351
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blue bleeder 24-7 View Post
I would though.

The NHL has redefined targeted to mean intentional, or less than intentional.

The head was the point of contact.

It meets all the criteria I know of to be a suspension.
I believe there is another criteria that you missed.
If the player getting hit places himself in a vulnerable position immediately prior to the hit, this will be taken into account.

VT basically turned his head right into a moving shoulder, that looked as though it would've hit his shoulder had he not done so.

Papaspud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2013, 12:18 AM
  #636
diehardbluesfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 771
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThirdManIn View Post
OK fair, but the hit was initially to the chest. It resulted in a hit to the head.
Are you saying Olver initially point of contact on Tarasenko was the chest or the head?

diehardbluesfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2013, 12:33 AM
  #637
diehardbluesfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 771
vCash: 500
I feel for the players because the NHL is so inconsistent with their calls of legal and illegal hits it's not even funny.

The NHL says it wants to get rid of head hits, but then the president of player safety says the principal point of contact was the head and no suspension. I realize the head has to be targeted but that is a joke of a rule as well, nobody really knows if he targets the head or not besides the player.

If the NHL was serious about getting rid of head hits, they would have suspended Olver, but like the NFL it's just a PR campaign to try and get the fans thinking they actually care about the players.

diehardbluesfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2013, 12:59 AM
  #638
Mant*
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blue bleeder 24-7 View Post
I would though.

The NHL has redefined targeted to mean intentional, or less than intentional.

The head was the point of contact.

It meets all the criteria I know of to be a suspension.
And it was Tarasenko that turned in such a way, that a quarter of a second later, his head took a hit. If he hadn't turned, it would have been a shoulder to shoulder hit.

Which is why it's not a suspension in anyone's minds except for blues fans.

Mant* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2013, 09:48 AM
  #639
Arrch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: NorCal
Country: United States
Posts: 4,483
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by diehardbluesfan View Post
I realize the head has to be targeted but that is a joke of a rule as well, nobody really knows if he targets the head or not besides the player.
I guess you didn't watch the video I posted:

"Targeted" is determined by the following factors:

- Did the player put himself in a vulnerable position immediately prior to the hit?
- Did the offending player flare their elbow or jump into the hit?
- Was the contact full body (Stuart, Olver) or was the head "picked" (Potter, Cole, Thornton).

Arrch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2013, 11:00 AM
  #640
Freudian
Slightly overpaid
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 34,428
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by diehardbluesfan View Post
I feel for the players because the NHL is so inconsistent with their calls of legal and illegal hits it's not even funny.

The NHL says it wants to get rid of head hits, but then the president of player safety says the principal point of contact was the head and no suspension. I realize the head has to be targeted but that is a joke of a rule as well, nobody really knows if he targets the head or not besides the player.

If the NHL was serious about getting rid of head hits, they would have suspended Olver, but like the NFL it's just a PR campaign to try and get the fans thinking they actually care about the players.
This is a common misconception. The word targeted in this rule doesn't mean "intentionally aim at" but is more referring to "where the impact was".

Shanahan can't prove intent and isn't trying to. If you accidentally get only a players head, the head was targeted.

Freudian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-27-2013, 10:11 AM
  #641
Brewsky
King Of The Ice Mugs
 
Brewsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: King County
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,595
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Brewsky Send a message via AIM to Brewsky Send a message via MSN to Brewsky Send a message via Yahoo to Brewsky Send a message via Skype™ to Brewsky
Any update on how long he'll be out for?

Brewsky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-27-2013, 10:21 AM
  #642
loLZokAY
str8 gonger
 
loLZokAY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 475
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brewsky View Post
Any update on how long he'll be out for?
They placed him on IR 5 days ago, but won't disclose any information or timelines.

http://www.sbnation.com/nhl/2013/2/2...njured-reserve

Quote:
The Blues did not formally address the reasoning for placing Tarasenko on injured reserve and have yet to update his status.
Quote:
In addition to announcing Tarasenko's placement on injured reserve, the team also announced that they had recalled forward Chris Porter from the American Hockey League's Peoria Rivermen.

loLZokAY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-27-2013, 10:24 AM
  #643
SirPaste
Use The Schwartz!
 
SirPaste's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: STL
Posts: 9,761
vCash: 50
No news, hasnt started skating yet so doubtful he returns soon

SirPaste is online now   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 07:50 PM.

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.