HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Mitchell's hit on Toews was a headshot? Really?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-06-2009, 12:55 PM
  #51
LostMyGlasses*
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Simon Fraser
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,430
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by L4D View Post
If slapshots are dangerous enough, players have the option of just getting out of the way.
Sure, if they want a spot in the pressbox next game

LostMyGlasses* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2009, 01:52 PM
  #52
timorousme
luongod
 
timorousme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,578
vCash: 50

timorousme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2009, 02:25 PM
  #53
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,875
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by timorousme View Post
Old time hockey.

Recently I was watching a classic Leafs/Rangers tilt from the mid 1970's on the NHL network and Jim Harrison of the Leafs clocked Vic Hadfield of the Rangers in an identical manner at centre ice and a brouhaha (actually several) ensued.

Here is the video - the centre ice hit just before the festivities is not shown but Hadfield goes after Harrsion and much fun ensues. Parent's mask is ripped off by Giacomin and tossed into the crowd.
http://vodpod.com/watch/1422178-old-...-leafs-rangers


And the same teams from 1959:


MMMMMMMMMMM... old time hockey.


Last edited by Wetcoaster: 11-06-2009 at 02:30 PM.
Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2009, 04:44 PM
  #54
billvanseattle
Registered User
 
billvanseattle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: bellingham
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,553
vCash: 500
Dirkph said "I still think it's a head shot. Where do you draw the line? If the NHL is going to set stricter rules on this, then they have to rule any head shot a head shot. There can't be any grey area or room for ambiguous interpretations. Players will learn to adapt as they have in the past with any rule.

Not to change the subject, but it's the same as kicking the puck into the net. There's too much grey area. Either make all those kicked-in goals count (which I think they should), or let none of them count.

I'm all for black and white rules over subjectivity and grey areas."

Very well put. I entirely agree. A head shot should be when your first contact is with the head, as per Naslund. Also goes for shoulder checks where they lift the should and get the guy on the chin rather than the chest. Also completely agree that kicking the puck in the net should be allowed.

While we are at it, 2 rules I would like added. Any time a fighting major is assessed, there must be some other penalty as well. Either an instigator, or that the fight started as the result of an incident that was called a penalty (i.e. a hit from behind that levels someone into the boards and a player comes to stand up for the guy), or that if both players just dropped their gloves they each get a 10 minute misconduct as well.

billvanseattle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2009, 04:50 PM
  #55
dhabums*
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,027
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by billvanseattle View Post
While we are at it, 2 rules I would like added. Any time a fighting major is assessed, there must be some other penalty as well. Either an instigator, or that the fight started as the result of an incident that was called a penalty (i.e. a hit from behind that levels someone into the boards and a player comes to stand up for the guy), or that if both players just dropped their gloves they each get a 10 minute misconduct as well.
Ever since the instigator was put in, I've thought ANY player running a goalie should be the one to get the instigator if a fight starts. When you run over a goalie you know exactly what is coming.

dhabums* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2009, 04:58 PM
  #56
hlrsr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,443
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhabums View Post
Ever since the instigator was put in, I've thought ANY player running a goalie should be the one to get the instigator if a fight starts. When you run over a goalie you know exactly what is coming.
Instigator for throwing a big hit?

hlrsr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2009, 05:03 PM
  #57
Slashy McSlewfoot
Registered User
 
Slashy McSlewfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,028
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by billvanseattle View Post
Very well put. I entirely agree. A head shot should be when your first contact is with the head, as per Naslund. Also goes for shoulder checks where they lift the should and get the guy on the chin rather than the chest. Also completely agree that kicking the puck in the net should be allowed.
What about accidental head shot? What if a player has a guy lined up shoulder to shoulder, then at the last minute the guy getting hit shifts position and WHAM headshot?

It's a physical sport, and there will always be unfortunate injuries. Some people need to just realize and accept this. I agree that obvious, intentional head shots should be dealt with harshly, however.

I also agree players should be allowed to kick the puck in the net. I never understood the reasoning behind that rule...is it a safety issue?

Slashy McSlewfoot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2009, 05:18 PM
  #58
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,875
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judas View Post
What about accidental head shot? What if a player has a guy lined up shoulder to shoulder, then at the last minute the guy getting hit shifts position and WHAM headshot?

It's a physical sport, and there will always be unfortunate injuries. Some people need to just realize and accept this. I agree that obvious, intentional head shots should be dealt with harshly, however.

I also agree players should be allowed to kick the puck in the net. I never understood the reasoning behind that rule...is it a safety issue?
This is hockey - it ain't figure skating.

Yes, it is believed if you allow players to kick away in scrums there is too much chance of serious injury from a skate blade.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2009, 05:23 PM
  #59
Slashy McSlewfoot
Registered User
 
Slashy McSlewfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,028
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
This is hockey - it ain't figure skating.

Yes, it is believed if you allow players to kick away in scrums there is too much chance of serious injury from a skate blade.
They kick pucks in nets in figure skating??? Wow, maybe I should try watching it sometime.

Thanks though, I kinda figured that was the reasoning behind the rule.

Slashy McSlewfoot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2009, 05:32 PM
  #60
Dirkph
Mancrush = Malhotra
 
Dirkph's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judas View Post
What about accidental head shot? What if a player has a guy lined up shoulder to shoulder, then at the last minute the guy getting hit shifts position and WHAM headshot?

It's a physical sport, and there will always be unfortunate injuries. Some people need to just realize and accept this. I agree that obvious, intentional head shots should be dealt with harshly, however.

I also agree players should be allowed to kick the puck in the net. I never understood the reasoning behind that rule...is it a safety issue?
Big deal. There are accidental high sticking penalties. There are accidental elbowing penalties. There are accidental tripping penalties. There are accidental boarding penalties, and so on.

Players must adapt to these changes. To prevent high sticking penalties, players are told to keep their sticks low at all times. To prevent elbowing penalties, players are told to keep their arms down when checking and so on.

Dirkph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2009, 05:40 PM
  #61
Slashy McSlewfoot
Registered User
 
Slashy McSlewfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,028
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirkph View Post
Big deal. There are accidental high sticking penalties. There are accidental elbowing penalties. There are accidental tripping penalties. There are accidental boarding penalties, and so on.

Players must adapt to these changes. To prevent high sticking penalties, players are told to keep their sticks low at all times. To prevent elbowing penalties, players are told to keep their arms down when checking and so on.
OK, well if an accidental headshot was a 2 minute penalty, I'm ok with that. Is that what you propose?

EDIT: You know, after I typed that, I realized even a 2 minute penalty would bother me, but still, I'm curious what you have to say.

Slashy McSlewfoot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2009, 06:16 PM
  #62
*Injektilo
Registered User
 
*Injektilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: France
Posts: 11,706
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judas View Post
OK, well if an accidental headshot was a 2 minute penalty, I'm ok with that. Is that what you propose?

EDIT: You know, after I typed that, I realized even a 2 minute penalty would bother me, but still, I'm curious what you have to say.
That is what I propose - 2 or 5 minutes, depending on the severity of the hit.

*Injektilo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2009, 06:21 PM
  #63
Dirkph
Mancrush = Malhotra
 
Dirkph's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judas View Post
OK, well if an accidental headshot was a 2 minute penalty, I'm ok with that. Is that what you propose?

EDIT: You know, after I typed that, I realized even a 2 minute penalty would bother me, but still, I'm curious what you have to say.
Well, does an accidental high sticking call bother you? What's the difference? If there were no penalties for any accidental high sticks, elbows, etc., then players would be careless. Players would be swinging their sticks around while risking the lives of other players.

There must be a penalty. In many other sports, penalties are the result of so-called 'accidents'.

I'm not going to debate what the penalty should be, because to be honest, I don't know. I just think that "head shots" need to be called every single time, regardless of the situation.

Dirkph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2009, 06:35 PM
  #64
Slashy McSlewfoot
Registered User
 
Slashy McSlewfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,028
vCash: 500
But headshots can happen by complete accident. It is not analogous to high-sticking or tripping because those invlove careless use of the stick. Elbowing is easily avoided by keeping the elbows down. You can line somebody up for a totally clean hit and one change in positioning by the recipient and it's a headshot. You want to penalize for that?

To me, a (maybe poor) analogy is a player getting hit with the puck. A dman winds up, shoots, and a player skates into the line of fire. Is it the shooting players fault? Do we penalize players for injuring other players with the puck? To me it's somewhat similiar because once a player is lining somebody up for a hit, there is very little time to react; if the recipient moves or puts his head in danger the hitter is almost always unable to change course. I just don't see how you can penalize somebody for this, and if you do, IMO you are threatening to remove the physicality from the game.

Or maybe I'm over-reacting, I dunno.

Slashy McSlewfoot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2009, 06:55 PM
  #65
*Injektilo
Registered User
 
*Injektilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: France
Posts: 11,706
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judas View Post
But headshots can happen by complete accident. It is not analogous to high-sticking or tripping because those invlove careless use of the stick. Elbowing is easily avoided by keeping the elbows down. You can line somebody up for a totally clean hit and one change in positioning by the recipient and it's a headshot. You want to penalize for that?
Players can be penalized for boarding or hitting from behind, even if the other player put himself in a vulnerable position.

Again, I point to the Richards-Boothe hit, where most if not all of the contact was on the head. I don't think that type of hit should be considered legal.

*Injektilo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2009, 06:59 PM
  #66
dhabums*
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,027
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirkph View Post
I'm not going to debate what the penalty should be, because to be honest, I don't know. I just think that "head shots" need to be called every single time, regardless of the situation.
When that rule is put in, then we should sign a team of guys who are all 5'5". PP all night long!

Do you think what Mitchell did was a headshot?

dhabums* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2009, 07:02 PM
  #67
Slashy McSlewfoot
Registered User
 
Slashy McSlewfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,028
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by *Injektilo View Post
Players can be penalized for boarding or hitting from behind, even if the other player put himself in a vulnerable position.
True, and good point. Though you will often see referess make a judgement call as to whether a penalty will be called. And to be honest, I'm not really a fan of this penalty either. If a player puts himself in a dangerous situation he should be prepared to face the consequences, IMO. And by that, I don't mean hitting guys in dangerous situations should be allowed, I mean if a player sees an incoming hit and he turns his back to it, that should be his own problem.

Quote:
Again, I point to the Richards-Boothe hit, where most if not all of the contact was on the head. I don't think that type of hit should be considered legal.
Was he aiming for the head though?

Slashy McSlewfoot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2009, 07:14 PM
  #68
MS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 16,254
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by *Injektilo View Post
Which is equally true regarding hits from behind or high sticks - yet players are penalized if they unintentionally transgress those rules. So what's the difference?
In the case of high sticks, there is no downside to calling accidental high sticks.

In the case of bodychecking, there is an obvious downside to calling accidental headshots - that players will be more hesitant to throw hard checks, which is a part of the game that almost every fan loves.

It's easier to pull away from a hit from behind because the play is happening only half as fast because the player being hit is almost always stationary. Additionally, players usually know enough not to turn into the boards because of the risk of serious injury it presents.



Quote:
Originally Posted by *Injektilo
People always bring up these nightmare scenarios whenever a change is proposed. Yet when the change is enacted, we find that the result is not as drastic as envisioned. Did calls on checking from behind stop players from slamming each other on the boards?
Creating a 'headshot' penalty is opening Pandora's Box. There will be so many grey lines and it will be so difficult to determine what is a 'headshot' and what isn't that it will be an absolute disaster. Again, simple physics (the fact that a player skating with the puck is generally hunched over, and the fact that a player's head always leads his body when he's skating unless he's Jyrki Lumme) means that almost every open-ice hit sees head-shoulder contact. It's pretty much a fluke if you manage to throw an open-ice hit and not hit the guy in the head.

And yeah, I'm absolutely convinced it'll lower the amount of bodychecking in the sport.


Quote:
Originally Posted by *Injektilo
I simply can't wrap my head around the notion that shooting the puck is exactly the same thing as body checking a player. This is as far as I can take that point.
I don't know how it's so hard to grasp the similarity.

Both are common hockey plays that fans like (hard shot, bodychecking) that pose an inherant risk to the players on the ice.

If someone posed the idea that we should make the game safer by returning it to the 1950s with no slapshots, the idea would be viewed as universally absurd.

Likewise, I view the notion of removing shoulder-head contact (which, again, is seen in almost every open-ice hit) to be similarly absurd.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Injektilo
Completely agree. To this day, I can't understand why the league doesn't regulate the equipment the players wear so that their shoulderpads are not made of that rock-hard plastic.
So then you'd agree that, maybe, the NHL should investigate whether concussions would be greatly reduced as a result of changing shoulderpad specs before they make a knee-jerk move to essentially ban open-ice hits?

My personal opinion is that concussions would probably drop by 50% if the league forced players to wear super-soft shoulderpads, and that that improvement would render this a dead issue.

MS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2009, 11:46 PM
  #69
hlrsr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,443
vCash: 500
I hope anyone who thinks that the Mitchell hit was questionable realizes they really are advocating removing, or at least neutering hits in hockey. What else was Mitchell supposed to do there, besides not hit him at all?

On closer inspection, it doesn't even look like there's any head contact to me. It's mostly shoulder to shoulder contact.

hlrsr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2009, 12:04 AM
  #70
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 22,989
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by hlrsr View Post
I hope anyone who thinks that the Mitchell hit was questionable realizes they really are advocating removing, or at least neutering hits in hockey. What else was Mitchell supposed to do there, besides not hit him at all?

On closer inspection, it doesn't even look like there's any head contact to me. It's mostly shoulder to shoulder contact.
If anything most of the force came through Mitchell's hip.

me2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2009, 04:04 AM
  #71
Stripes
 
Stripes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,185
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
Why don't we put dresses on all these guys and put toe picks on their skates while we're at it. I'm not a fan of people getting injured seriously but c'mon, this is an incredibly fast paced game, played by physical specimens. There are going to be big hits, and there are going to be injuries due to those hits. People who play full contact sports know going in that its FULL CONTACT and that injuries are a distinct possibility. If you are afraid of being injured, get a crappy job and play non-contact hockey for fun. If the NHL wants to protect heads, get rid of all the hard plastics on the equipment (elbows and shoulders)and invest more money in helmet technology.
Helmets don't protect against concussions. A concussion is the brain hitting against the skull on the inside of your head. Not even a bulletproof military helmet can protect against that. A helmet protects against blunt force trauma. If you have a blunt force injury that your helmet fails to protect you from, a concussion is going to be the least of your worries.

When it comes to head shots, EVERY LEAGUE IN THE WORLD, except the NHL (and the few other leagues who use the NHL rulebook, and maybe some minor pro leagues that nobody cares about) has a Checking To The Head rule, and none of those leagues have seen a decrease in bodychecking because of it. The NHL says it will, but they obviously don't watch the leagues who do have the rule. It will NOT take out open ice (or any other kind of) bodychecking. The proof has been under all of our noses for a few years in other leagues.

If Zdeno Chara can control his hits to not make initial impact with his opponents' heads, any NHL player can.

The question I have for people with the caveman mentality that shoulder to head hits are ok, is what is the difference between that and an elbow to the head.... for the player being hit? The majority of hits that spark this debate are when the player being hit is in the "trolley tracks" with his "head down". Using Richards on Booth, the message I get from the cavemen, is that if Richards had have used his elbow, it would have been dirty, but since he used his shoulder, it's clean. Why does the shoulder give players a license to injure an opponent? It makes no sense.

As far as I am concerned, and every rulebook besides that of the NHL agrees, a check of any kind delivered to the head, is not a bodycheck.

As for Dave Hodge, the guy did receive a ton of emails about the Mitchell-Toews reference. I sent one. I didn't get a response, but I pretty much asked if he was smart enough to reference actual headshots when publishing an article about them. Mitchell's hit on Toews was as clean as a bell. No contact with Toews' head at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dhabums View Post
Ever since the instigator was put in, I've thought ANY player running a goalie should be the one to get the instigator if a fight starts. When you run over a goalie you know exactly what is coming.
Fundamentally, I understand where you are coming from, but it still doesn't make sense because the rulebook has both Goaltender Interference and the Instigator. Why complicate the rulebook and make even more grey area for the referees? What your suggestion does, is make the Instigator's definition something different in the specific situation of a goaltender being hit, and it takes the Goaltender Intereference rule out of the book if an opposing player starts (but really doesn't start) a fight with him.


Last, but not least, I'll chime in on the accidental debate. Somebody asked what the difference is between an accidental high stick (among other infractions) and an accidental headshot... and it has yet to be answered. Speaking as a referee, my job is not to determine what a player is intending to do. My job is to see what a player actually does, and apply the rules accordingly. I don't care what is an accident and what is not, no matter what rule I am enforcing. The only time I can judge a player's intent is if I need to decide whether or not a player intended to injure his opponent, in which case I would call a Match Penalty. Nowhere in the rulebook does it say that I shall only make certain calls if the infraction was not accidental. Reality is that 90% of penalties called are due to unintentional infractions. Players don't want to take penalties.


Last edited by Stripes: 11-07-2009 at 04:11 AM.
Stripes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2009, 06:01 AM
  #72
Dirkph
Mancrush = Malhotra
 
Dirkph's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judas View Post
But headshots can happen by complete accident. It is not analogous to high-sticking or tripping because those invlove careless use of the stick. Elbowing is easily avoided by keeping the elbows down. You can line somebody up for a totally clean hit and one change in positioning by the recipient and it's a headshot. You want to penalize for that?

To me, a (maybe poor) analogy is a player getting hit with the puck. A dman winds up, shoots, and a player skates into the line of fire. Is it the shooting players fault? Do we penalize players for injuring other players with the puck? To me it's somewhat similiar because once a player is lining somebody up for a hit, there is very little time to react; if the recipient moves or puts his head in danger the hitter is almost always unable to change course. I just don't see how you can penalize somebody for this, and if you do, IMO you are threatening to remove the physicality from the game.

Or maybe I'm over-reacting, I dunno.
It is a touchy issue, indeed. And head shots are a much more difficult problem to remedy than elbowing/high sticking, but I still hold true to my statement about it.

But here we are faced with not only a game dynamics issue, but a moral issues. Look at the NHL this season and look at how many injuries we've had. It's getting brutal. There are way too many players getting hurt and it's honestly ruining the experience for a lot of fans.

And most importantly, lives are at risk. I am all for preventative measures and there is no other way to protect against head shots than to outright penalize for it.

Now, I'm not saying all of the injuries this season have resulted in head shots, but there have been a few cases in the past where it has resulted in VERY serious injuries - borderline life threatening. That M. Richards one is just a recent example.

I think the NHL has to actively cut down what is considered "rough" and what is considered potentially life threatening. Whether intentional or not, you're dealing with human lives. Hockey isn't a safe game and I think it can be safer without it getting any less entertaining.

Quote:
When that rule is put in, then we should sign a team of guys who are all 5'5". PP all night long!

Do you think what Mitchell did was a headshot?
Sounds like a good plan. I'm sure that's feasible for everyone.

Players that are short don't need to be head shotted in violent manners to be separated from the puck. Most of the time, as exhibited by Kyle Wellwood, they just need to be forced into the boards, and then they'll most likely fall like drunken toddlers.

And as I have stated before, I do not think Mitchell's hit was a head shot.

Dirkph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2009, 06:07 AM
  #73
Dirkph
Mancrush = Malhotra
 
Dirkph's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,102
vCash: 500
Stripes just made a very good point as well.

There is no difference between an accidental high stick and an accidental head shot. Both are dangerous and can potentially harm a human life. That's not a risk that I'm willing to take.

Players will fake whatever they can fake in order to draw a penalty. I've seen many players fake a high sticking penalty... and this enrages you less than if a player makes a head shot regardless of intention? Every penalty has its dark, twisted side. Does that mean we can't have them? Of course not.

Big hits are great. I love them. But sometimes, in fact 99% of the time, you do not need a massive open ice body check to separate the man from the puck. I can't say for sure since I do not play hockey, but I've seen a lot of great d-men do it without a hitch.

Dirkph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2009, 09:54 AM
  #74
The Pucks
Registered User
 
The Pucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,596
vCash: 500
Whether Mitchells hit was a headshot or not depends on your outlook, if you have your head up your ass it would definatly look like a head shot.

The Pucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2009, 11:34 AM
  #75
billvanseattle
Registered User
 
billvanseattle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: bellingham
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,553
vCash: 500
Pucks comment

subtle, very subtle.

Anyhow, I want to see head shots called penalties, but clearly the Mitchell hit should not be a penalty. Just to make my position clear.

billvanseattle 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 12:29 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.