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

Holmgren assists in developing blindside hit/hits to head rule

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-10-2010, 01:05 PM
  #26
FlyHigh
Registered User
 
FlyHigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 28,156
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to FlyHigh Send a message via MSN to FlyHigh
Quote:
Originally Posted by UseYourAllusion View Post
You're the one who had the Arshavin avatar for months. It doesn't get much more communist that a russian soccer player.
Balls.

How do you remember that anyways? You keeping files on HFboards posters? KGB?

FlyHigh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2010, 01:05 PM
  #27
GoneFullHextall
RIP Andy B.
 
GoneFullHextall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere in NH
Country: United States
Posts: 36,635
vCash: 50
I will say this, I will have no respect for the Bruins if they dont act on this. I realize they need to win games, but there comes a time when enough is enough.
I can see Lucic chalenging Cooke, and Cooke turtling like the **** that he is.

GoneFullHextall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2010, 01:07 PM
  #28
UseYourAllusion
Registered User
 
UseYourAllusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philly
Country: United States
Posts: 6,873
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyHigh View Post
Balls.

How do you remember that anyways? You keeping files on HFboards posters? KGB?
detailed files.

UseYourAllusion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2010, 01:09 PM
  #29
TheSkatingDutchman
Registered User
 
TheSkatingDutchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Albany, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 617
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FireHolmgrenDotCom View Post
case in point. Messier's crosscheck to the face of Doug Gilmour in the 97 playoffs that changed the complextion of that series.
Great player, but he was a dirty SOB.
It would be like Ulf Samuelsson being on a commitee to end knee injures from dirty checks.
I don't think they're trying to solve those kind of things though. It's easy to suspend somebody for a crosscheck to the face. The three videos that were posted earlier are more of the hit I think they're talking about.

They're trying to get rid of hits that happen fast after a shot or pass. If you look at all those videos, they start as a player trying to remove the puck from the other play with a body check. The player with the puck takes a shot (or drop pass in Booth's case) and leave themselves vulnerable to a hit.

Compare that to a hit on Gagne by Kovalev. That's clearly an elbow after the play had moved elsewhere and obviously dirty. The Richards/Carter hits are just coincidental hits of a play leaving himself open to a hit to the head. The Cooke hit is different because he may or may not have thrown an elbow, which brings intent into it. If he was looking to hurt Savard or it was just a hit gone bad.

TheSkatingDutchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2010, 01:10 PM
  #30
FlyHigh
Registered User
 
FlyHigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 28,156
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to FlyHigh Send a message via MSN to FlyHigh
Quote:
Originally Posted by FireHolmgrenDotCom View Post
I will say this, I will have no respect for the Bruins if they dont act on this. I realize they need to win games, but there comes a time when enough is enough.
I can see Lucic chalenging Cooke, and Cooke turtling like the **** that he is.
Yeah, they're probably boned without Savard anyways.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UseYourAllusion View Post
detailed files.
Okay comrade.

FlyHigh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2010, 01:22 PM
  #31
GoneFullHextall
RIP Andy B.
 
GoneFullHextall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere in NH
Country: United States
Posts: 36,635
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSkatingDutchman View Post
I don't think they're trying to solve those kind of things though. It's easy to suspend somebody for a crosscheck to the face. The three videos that were posted earlier are more of the hit I think they're talking about.

They're trying to get rid of hits that happen fast after a shot or pass. If you look at all those videos, they start as a player trying to remove the puck from the other play with a body check. The player with the puck takes a shot (or drop pass in Booth's case) and leave themselves vulnerable to a hit.

Compare that to a hit on Gagne by Kovalev. That's clearly an elbow after the play had moved elsewhere and obviously dirty. The Richards/Carter hits are just coincidental hits of a play leaving himself open to a hit to the head. The Cooke hit is different because he may or may not have thrown an elbow, which brings intent into it. If he was looking to hurt Savard or it was just a hit gone bad.
I realize the crosscheck to the face is different then what we are talking about here. I just found it ironic that Messier is in this disscussion when we all know the type of player he was.
Kovalev didnt hit Gagne. he delivered a cheap elbow that had nothing to do with the play at all.
I agree there is a differance between the Richards and Cooke hits in where and why they happened, but they need to eliminate those type of hits from the game. There can be no gray area or anything. Either the hit is a penalty and/or a suspension or its not.

GoneFullHextall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2010, 01:23 PM
  #32
i am dave
Registered User
 
i am dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Corner of 1st & 1st
Country: United States
Posts: 2,182
vCash: 500
I don't think anything will change until

A) A metric is established to base suspensions on hits to the head

and

B) That metric is not based on its lower end by how hurt a guy is.

They need to step in and say "Alright, every hit to the head warrants a minimum X game suspension." Then if they want to consider the severity of the resulting injury to add suspension time to, by all means. But the initial shot to the head should be minimum - I don't know - 1 or 2 game suspension. A Grade 1 concussion would add X games, a Grade 2 concussion, Y games, and so forth. I don't know how well that additional time works, but it's a starter for discussion.

Up and until now, guys have been going out there with the understanding of "so long as the guy can get back up on his skates, I won't get suspended."

I think what all hockey fans - Flyers fans in particular - are fed up with is the arbitrary dishing out of suspensions. No more "first time offender" exemptions, no more "he's a goon out there on the penalty kill" trumping. No more Colin Campbell.

i am dave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2010, 01:37 PM
  #33
IrishSniper87
Registered User
 
IrishSniper87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Media, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 13,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSkatingDutchman View Post
The worst part of this hit is that when he's lying on the ground and concussed, they make him listen to Coldplay.
QFT.

That's just wrong on so many levels. Coldplay is torture for people who are feeling ok anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyHigh View Post
Balls.

How do you remember that anyways? You keeping files on HFboards posters? KGB?
rofl

IrishSniper87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2010, 01:55 PM
  #34
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
Exactly. These are all now going to be judgement calls by the officials. Now a hit like Carter's on Salmela, though legal, will be regarded as an official penalty.

Cooke's hit is VASTLY different than Carter's and fairly different from Richards'. It deserved a suspension in my opinion. It wasn't just a shoulder/body check. It was a swing out while Savards' head was low after a shot. There's a little gray area there, but it was different.

What this means, or at least what I'm afraid it might mean, is that all these hits will be viewed as equals and will be penalized as equals.
Carter's hit on Salmela doesn't even deserve comparison to the Cooke and Richards hit (both of which deserve suspensions if they're serious about doing anything about headshots). And, the Cooke hit is pretty much a carbon copy of the Richards hit on Booth.

Borrowing from the new Pens blogger at Hockeybuzz:

Still frames of Cooke's hit:



Still frames of Richards' hit:



In both cases they came from the players' right after releasing the puck, and did direct blows to the hittee's head. Hell, in Richards' case in slow motion it appeared he purposefully angled himself to get under Booth's shoulder so that his shoulder drove straight through his jaw. At the time I thought Richards should have been suspended (still think he should have been), but if you're not going to suspend Richards for that hit, then it's hypocritical to now suspend Cooke.

In the future, hopefully that is not the case.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2010, 02:08 PM
  #35
claude boivin lives
flat out spectacular
 
claude boivin lives's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 2,845
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Carter's hit on Salmela doesn't even deserve comparison to the Cooke and Richards hit...
I believe his point was that in the split second in which the refs have to assess these things, a penalty could very easily be called on that Carter hit.

And I'd say that it appeared Richards purposefully angled himself to make sure he caught some part of Booth. If he hadn't done so, he'd have missed him altogether. The still frames provide more evidence of what I said before...that Richards caught some of Booth's chest area. It's not a carbon copy of the Cooke hit...Cooke's was a complete headshot, whereas I think it'd be more fair to call Richards a partial. Richards may have been deserving of some suspension, but Cooke was more so. Though, no matter how you slice it, the hits were definitely similar...I'm not denying that.

claude boivin lives is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2010, 02:10 PM
  #36
GoneFullHextall
RIP Andy B.
 
GoneFullHextall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere in NH
Country: United States
Posts: 36,635
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post

In both cases they came from the players' right after releasing the puck, and did direct blows to the hittee's head. Hell, in Richards' case in slow motion it appeared he purposefully angled himself to get under Booth's shoulder so that his shoulder drove straight through his jaw. At the time I thought Richards should have been suspended (still think he should have been), but if you're not going to suspend Richards for that hit, then it's hypocritical to now suspend Cooke.

In the future, hopefully that is not the case.
I dont think there was malice with the Richards hit on Booth. Its being argued pretty heavy on the main board about Cooke's intent on Savard. Only differance between the 2 is Cooke's history with delivering questionable hits.
That said I agree that these type of hits have to end now. Before someone gets a more serious injury other then a grade 2 concussion.
If these type of hits are illegal next year and suspendable I will have no problem with it whatsoever so long as Campbell is consistant with the punishment. No more of this "hes not a bully" hes a "bully" view. If its one of our guys fine. Just be consistant.

GoneFullHextall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2010, 02:11 PM
  #37
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by claude boivin lives View Post
I believe his point was that in the split second in which the refs have to assess these things, a penalty could very easily be called on that Carter hit.

And I'd say that it appeared Richards purposefully angled himself to make sure he caught some part of Booth. If he hadn't done so, he'd have missed him altogether. The still frames provide more evidence of what I said before...that Richards caught some of Booth's chest area. It's not a carbon copy of the Cooke hit...Cooke's was a complete headshot, whereas I think it's be more fair to call Richards a partial. Richards may have been deserving of some suspension, but Cooke was more so. Though, no matter how you slice it, the hits were definitely similar...I'm not denying that.
Disagree completely...he put his shoulder DIRECTLY into Booth's jaw. I'm sure he "scraped" some of his chest en route, but it did nothing to lessen the blow of the shot to the head.

In any event, Cooke is not suspended.

http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=313323

Quote:
In explaining his decision, NHL vice president of hockey operations Colin Campbell said that the ruling was based on consistency involving similar incidents. Philadelphia's Mike Richards was not suspended for a similar hit on Florida's David Booth, so using that as precedent, Cooke was not suspended either.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2010, 02:13 PM
  #38
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FireHolmgrenDotCom View Post
I dont think there was malice with the Richards hit on Booth. Its being argued pretty heavy on the main board about Cooke's intent on Savard. Only differance between the 2 is Cooke's history with delivering questionable hits.
That said I agree that these type of hits have to end now. Before someone gets a more serious injury other then a grade 2 concussion.
If these type of hits are illegal next year and suspendable I will have no problem with it whatsoever so long as Campbell is consistant with the punishment. No more of this "hes not a bully" hes a "bully" view. If its one of our guys fine. Just be consistant.
Do I think there was "malice" on Richards' part? No. Do I think he angled himself to create the most devastating possible check on Booth? Absolutely.

In doing so, he went from what would have been a clean hit through his shoulder, to a "clean hit" through his jaw.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2010, 02:18 PM
  #39
TheSkatingDutchman
Registered User
 
TheSkatingDutchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Albany, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 617
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Carter's hit on Salmela doesn't even deserve comparison to the Cooke and Richards hit (both of which deserve suspensions if they're serious about doing anything about headshots). And, the Cooke hit is pretty much a carbon copy of the Richards hit on Booth.

Borrowing from the new Pens blogger at Hockeybuzz:

Still frames of Cooke's hit:



Still frames of Richards' hit:



In both cases they came from the players' right after releasing the puck, and did direct blows to the hittee's head. Hell, in Richards' case in slow motion it appeared he purposefully angled himself to get under Booth's shoulder so that his shoulder drove straight through his jaw. At the time I thought Richards should have been suspended (still think he should have been), but if you're not going to suspend Richards for that hit, then it's hypocritical to now suspend Cooke.

In the future, hopefully that is not the case.
In my opinion, the major difference between the two is that Cooke led with his elbow. Richards getting in front of and lower than Booth should have nothing to do with it. That's just simply how you make a hit. You get under his center of gravity to knock him off the puck and you get in front of him to take away his skating lane.

The problem was the Booth looks over to Richards at the last moment, so instead of getting hit in the chest or shoulder, he takes it to the face. Richards can't do anything to stop himself once he commits to that check. Although he does tries to pull up and avoid hitting him in the head with all of his shoulder.

Cooke, on the other hand, moves his elbow into Savard's face. He actively makes an attempt to hit Savard in the face. The two aren't really comparable, in my opinion.

TheSkatingDutchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2010, 02:22 PM
  #40
DUHockey9
Registered User
 
DUHockey9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hogwarts
Country: United States
Posts: 4,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by i am dave View Post
I don't think anything will change until

A) A metric is established to base suspensions on hits to the head

and

B) That metric is not based on its lower end by how hurt a guy is.

They need to step in and say "Alright, every hit to the head warrants a minimum X game suspension." Then if they want to consider the severity of the resulting injury to add suspension time to, by all means. But the initial shot to the head should be minimum - I don't know - 1 or 2 game suspension. A Grade 1 concussion would add X games, a Grade 2 concussion, Y games, and so forth. I don't know how well that additional time works, but it's a starter for discussion.

Up and until now, guys have been going out there with the understanding of "so long as the guy can get back up on his skates, I won't get suspended."

I think what all hockey fans - Flyers fans in particular - are fed up with is the arbitrary dishing out of suspensions. No more "first time offender" exemptions, no more "he's a goon out there on the penalty kill" trumping. No more Colin Campbell.
See I don't think you can do this. There is too much variability in severity of concussions from case to case. If you hit Gagne in the head, he may very well never play again. If you hit a perfectly healthy person (and let's say "hard headed" for the sake of this argument) it might not even result in a concussion. The SAME EXACT hit could have drastically different results depending on who is hit.

This doesn't even consider the other factors. What kind of helmet does he wear? Some better protect against concussion. If you are hitting Selanne in his old school Jofa, versus someone in the newest of the new, it makes a difference. Do they wear a mouthpiece? Do they wear a mouthpiece and actually wear it (Pat Kane)?

My point is the same exact hit can result in drastically different suspensions depending on who is it. The same exact hit could ruin one guy for life, and not even phase a different guy.

DUHockey9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2010, 02:25 PM
  #41
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSkatingDutchman View Post
In my opinion, the major difference between the two is that Cooke led with his elbow. Richards getting in front of and lower than Booth should have nothing to do with it. That's just simply how you make a hit. You get under his center of gravity to knock him off the puck and you get in front of him to take away his skating lane.

The problem was the Booth looks over to Richards at the last moment, so instead of getting hit in the chest or shoulder, he takes it to the face. Richards can't do anything to stop himself once he commits to that check. Although he does tries to pull up and avoid hitting him in the head with all of his shoulder.

Cooke, on the other hand, moves his elbow into Savard's face. He actively makes an attempt to hit Savard in the face. The two aren't really comparable, in my opinion.
Cooke's hit is in no way an elbow. He has his arm tucked, and hits him on the side of his arm/shoulder. If it had been an elbow, then there is no question that he would have been suspended.

And I disagree on your assessment of the Richards hit entirely. If he'd not dipped his shoulder to get his body in front of Booth, he could have flattened him going through Booth's shoulder. He didn't.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2010, 02:34 PM
  #42
KimiFerrari
Messi Is God
 
KimiFerrari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Montreal, Qc
Country: Argentina
Posts: 3,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Cooke's hit is in no way an elbow. He has his arm tucked, and hits him on the side of his arm/shoulder. If it had been an elbow, then there is no question that he would have been suspended.

And I disagree on your assessment of the Richards hit entirely. If he'd not dipped his shoulder to get his body in front of Booth, he could have flattened him going through Booth's shoulder. He didn't.
The glaring difference is that Richards and Booth where both moving fairly fast, meanwhile Savard was standing still releasing a shot.

What is easier to hit a target not moving or a target moving?

KimiFerrari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2010, 02:35 PM
  #43
TheSkatingDutchman
Registered User
 
TheSkatingDutchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Albany, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 617
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Cooke's hit is in no way an elbow. He has his arm tucked, and hits him on the side of his arm/shoulder. If it had been an elbow, then there is no question that he would have been suspended.

And I disagree on your assessment of the Richards hit entirely. If he'd not dipped his shoulder to get his body in front of Booth, he could have flattened him going through Booth's shoulder. He didn't.
But you don't want to hit a person on the shoulder. That's just not how you check. You get in front of and under a player to make the hit. If you go to hit somebody on the shoulder you either bounce of the person or miss them entirely.

TheSkatingDutchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2010, 02:39 PM
  #44
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KimiFerrari View Post
The glaring difference is that Richards and Booth where both moving fairly fast, meanwhile Savard was standing still releasing a shot.

What is easier to hit a target not moving or a target moving?
Erm...relative speed is important. Richards and Booth were going pretty much the same speed...so, Booth wasn't going "fast" in Richards' perception of approaching him, as they were following generally parallel tracks (though closing on one another) in the same direction.

Is it hard to hit a car going the same speed as you on your left at high speed on the highway?

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2010, 02:41 PM
  #45
KimiFerrari
Messi Is God
 
KimiFerrari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Montreal, Qc
Country: Argentina
Posts: 3,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Erm...relative speed is important. Richards and Booth were going pretty much the same speed...so, Booth wasn't going "fast" in Richards' perception of approaching him, as they were following generally parallel tracks (though closing on one another) in the same direction.

Is it hard to hit a car going the same speed as you on your left at high speed on the highway?
Is it easier to hit that car when you line it up and you know it wont move at all?

Edit: You are making the same assumption Richards did on that hit. The car was going to stay the same speed, but guess what? It didn't and you hit something you didn't want to.

KimiFerrari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2010, 02:54 PM
  #46
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KimiFerrari View Post
Is it easier to hit that car when you line it up and you know it wont move at all?

Edit: You are making the same assumption Richards did on that hit. The car was going to stay the same speed, but guess what? It didn't and you hit something you didn't want to.
I made no "assumptions," I refuted your simple assessment that the fact that Booth was going "fast" was necessarily important to the difficulty of hitting him. Fact of the matter is that it wasn't...because Richards was going just as fast.

If something is stationary and you go really really fast at it and misjudge your angle it's very difficult to adjust at the last instant. If you're both going very fast -- making the object move slower in your perception -- it can be easier to adjust. Until the last second when Richards really cut in to get under Booth and, therefore, increased his relative velocity to Booth...Booth wasn't moving very quickly compared to Richards.

And, Richards absolutely "wanted" to hit him, and if you watch the replay closely it looks like he did everything in his power to maximizes the effect of that hit. He didn't have to lean forward and get his own shoulder lower and in front of Booth's shoulder. He could have maintained a more upright position and just gone through Booth's shoulder.

Richards adjusted to the situation as he got closer.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2010, 03:00 PM
  #47
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 14,009
vCash: 500
Richards torqued across and led with the shoulder. It looked dirty because Richards was in fact trying to get in front of Booth's shoulder so that he wouldn't be contacting Booth from behind. Actually, if Richards had clocked Booth from behind it would be closer to an illegal play in my mind. What Richards did in that situation was correct. He was trying to take the body but had to move in front of Booth to do it.

Cooke's hit was moving from the opposite angle and he led with the shoulder right at Savard's head. There is a distinct difference just based on the positioning even if the result looks somewhat similar.

Richards was more trying to shove Booth off the puck from the side. Cooke was trying to barrel into him. Like I said, distinct difference.

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2010, 03:05 PM
  #48
DrinkFightFlyers
Provolone & The Neck
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 14,677
vCash: 470
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiamiScreamingEagles View Post
Holmgren is ultimately responsible for every aspect of the department to which he oversees but his assistant Barry Hanrahan specializes in the salary cap and has a sports management background and is a grad of the Widener University School of Law.

http://flyers.nhl.com/club/page.htm?bcid=10843

http://www.csnphilly.com/pages/landi...824&feedID=704
Hell yeah! I'm about to follow in his footsteps (or at least attempt to).

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2010, 03:07 PM
  #49
KimiFerrari
Messi Is God
 
KimiFerrari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Montreal, Qc
Country: Argentina
Posts: 3,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
I made no "assumptions," I refuted your simple assessment that the fact that Booth was going "fast" was necessarily important to the difficulty of hitting him. Fact of the matter is that it wasn't...because Richards was going just as fast.

If something is stationary and you go really really fast at it and misjudge your angle it's very difficult to adjust at the last instant. If you're both going very fast -- making the object move slower in your perception -- it can be easier to adjust. Until the last second when Richards really cut in to get under Booth and, therefore, increased his relative velocity to Booth...Booth wasn't moving very quickly compared to Richards.

And, Richards absolutely "wanted" to hit him, and if you watch the replay closely it looks like he did everything in his power to maximizes the effect of that hit. He didn't have to lean forward and get his own shoulder lower and in front of Booth's shoulder. He could have maintained a more upright position and just gone through Booth's shoulder.

Richards adjusted to the situation as he got closer.
You still can't see then.

The faster they are the more dramatic a change of speed can happen. The larger the change of speed means a larger adjustment to be made. And in hit like that inches matter.

Where did I say Richards did not want to hit him? Don't straw-man it is pointless. Hitting someone as hard as possible to take them out of a play and hitting them in the head on purpose is very different.

And your example of going really fast and hitting something stationary also has no merits. Cooke was not going fast and nor did he have much of a distance to travel.

KimiFerrari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2010, 03:24 PM
  #50
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
Richards torqued across and led with the shoulder. It looked dirty because Richards was in fact trying to get in front of Booth's shoulder so that he wouldn't be contacting Booth from behind. Actually, if Richards had clocked Booth from behind it would be closer to an illegal play in my mind. What Richards did in that situation was correct. He was trying to take the body but had to move in front of Booth to do it.
Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.

If Richards "hits Booth from behind," -- which he wouldn't have, it would have been a lateral hit maybe slightly from behind -- Booth doesn't miss a single shift.

Quote:
Cooke's hit was moving from the opposite angle and he led with the shoulder right at Savard's head. There is a distinct difference just based on the positioning even if the result looks somewhat similar.
Opposite angle...they both came from the players right...I'm sure there is marginal difference in angle, but it certainly isn't the "opposite" angle.

Quote:
Richards was more trying to shove Booth off the puck from the side. Cooke was trying to barrel into him. Like I said, distinct difference.
Dude, Richards' hit was a pure kill shot hit on a player moving across center ice and exposed to it. Richards has done that numerous times, it's the first time it has had such disastrous consequences.

He was not trying to "shove him off the puck," he was trying to light his ass up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KimiFerrari View Post
You still can't see then.

The faster they are the more dramatic a change of speed can happen. The larger the change of speed means a larger adjustment to be made. And in hit like that inches matter.
Actually, here is where you have a problem. There is a thing called "momentum", which directly affects your ability to make dramatic changes of speed to occur. For example, the faster you are going the harder it is to come to a full stop.

While the speed of collision is terribly important, but relative speed also needs to be minded.

Quote:
Where did I say Richards did not want to hit him? Don't straw-man it is pointless. Hitting someone as hard as possible to take them out of a play and hitting them in the head on purpose is very different
.

To quote you:

Quote:
Edit: You are making the same assumption Richards did on that hit. The car was going to stay the same speed, but guess what? It didn't and you hit something you didn't want to.
I think he hit him exactly how he wanted to hit him...which is why I had a big problem with that hit.

Quote:
And your example of going really fast and hitting something stationary also has no merits. Cooke was not going fast and nor did he have much of a distance to travel.
...wasn't talking about the Cooke hit... was talking about the Richards hit, and how the relative speed (in the same direction) washes out as a matter of perception.

Jester 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 08:40 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.