HFBoards

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

Doughty cleared to return to full hockey activity, expected to play Thursday

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-21-2010, 03:35 PM
  #101
Cruel11
Son, just don't.
 
Cruel11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 16,135
vCash: 500
Murray:

Quote:
MURRAY: ďGoing back through the game (video), itís there. Doughty had moved the puck a considerable time before the hit, thatís for sure. He was four or five feet on his own side of the red line. I donít have the TV look, that real close look, to see exactly how it all shakes out. Itís unfortunate. Itís a hit that, I guess, happens in a game.Ē
http://lakingsinsider.com/

Cruel11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2010, 03:48 PM
  #102
jimmy1100
Registered User
 
jimmy1100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Seattle
Country: United States
Posts: 1,816
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Dutch View Post
... Well OK, you're not talking about a McSorley or Bertuzzi response. So, what exactly are you advocating? Why isn't a good hard clean hit enough of a response? Even if the Kings had guys like Joey Kocur, the late Bob Probert, etc etc ... you don't think guys are gonna get hit? Of course they will, especially if they're caught admiring their passes or skating absent-mindedly over the opponent's blue line. THAT's hockey; your guys get hit, and you go out and hit other guys. Checks get finished. It wasn't like Doughty got a cheap shot with a stick. If we're talking spearing, heavy slashing, heavy boarding - then OK, alright, make an example of them. But a clean hit?

I actually think this is a good thing for Doughty. He's gotten off to a slow start this season, and it might wake him up. In the recent past, he's done a lot of mouthing off. If you're gonna talk like that, don't be surprised if you get hit. Hell - don't be surprised if you get hit, regardless. There's no reason to advocate a dirty act that may or may not cost the team down the road. NO one is bigger than the team, not even Drew Doughty. If, in the next game against Carolina, Brown or whoever is able to catch Cole with a big hit ... then great, message delivered. There's the receipt. But I don't advocate anything beyond that, not for something like this.
Do you try and take everything I type the wrong way? Advocate a dirty act? I mentioned Bertuzzi and McSorely. The former jumped a guy from behind and rode him face first into the ice and the latter swung his stick baseball-bat-style at a man's head. I mentioned them because that's obviously NOT the response I'm talking about.

Perhaps the confusion is that I mentioned a 5-minute major. In retrospect maybe I should've said fight instigator instead. All I meant was that I don't care if the response costs us a goal or a game, I just want a response PERIOD. ANYTHING at all. You seem to have a great hockey memory, so I'm sure you can think of an instance that I'm talking about.

Here's an example - Jack Johnson's hit on Ryan Smyth two years ago. (When Smyth's head hit the padded end-glass by the bench). His teammates immediately came in and started some ****. Nobody was brutalized in response to a perfectly clean hit, but play was stopped because of the response (and because Smyth was out) and the message was clear from Colorado - we saw one of our best players get hit HARD and we're here to back him up, regardless of whether the hit was clean or not.

That's all I'm saying needs to happen next time one of our biggest stars (and most important players) has something like this happen.

Remember, I already said that I understand why this didn't happen last night (most people missed the play entirely) but I'm saying that I want to see SOMEONE respond to the next one. Somebody HAS to do something. Doesn't have to be egregious, but something's gotta happen.

jimmy1100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2010, 03:50 PM
  #103
DeeMeck
Registered User
 
DeeMeck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,370
vCash: 500
^^^^

I believe that WAS retribution for when Smyth speared LaBarbera the game before.

LaBarbera has never been the same since that incident, and he was playing the best hockey of his career the few weeks before that.

DeeMeck is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2010, 03:54 PM
  #104
etherialone
dialed in your mom
 
etherialone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The Ether
Country: United Nations
Posts: 12,990
vCash: 500
Well said Jimmy.

Those who say that hockey is a violent sport in defence of the hit have to accept that it is and that getting your butt kicked for BS is part of its violent history and how the game became famous. It has its rules, both written and un written.

etherialone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2010, 03:55 PM
  #105
SLang
Registered User
 
SLang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Posts: 3,603
vCash: 500
Sucks big-time about Doughty but if the Kings can't win without him then they're not the team we think they are. They need to face the adversity and like said before better now than later.

Doughty is "a" King (and a spectacular one), but he is not "the" Kings.

SLang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2010, 03:59 PM
  #106
SLang
Registered User
 
SLang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Posts: 3,603
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmy1100 View Post
Do you try and take everything I type the wrong way? Advocate a dirty act? I mentioned Bertuzzi and McSorely. The former jumped a guy from behind and rode him face first into the ice and the latter swung his stick baseball-bat-style at a man's head. I mentioned them because that's obviously NOT the response I'm talking about.

Perhaps the confusion is that I mentioned a 5-minute major. In retrospect maybe I should've said fight instigator instead. All I meant was that I don't care if the response costs us a goal or a game, I just want a response PERIOD. ANYTHING at all. You seem to have a great hockey memory, so I'm sure you can think of an instance that I'm talking about.

Here's an example - Jack Johnson's hit on Ryan Smyth two years ago. (When Smyth's head hit the padded end-glass by the bench). His teammates immediately came in and started some ****. Nobody was brutalized in response to a perfectly clean hit, but play was stopped because of the response (and because Smyth was out) and the message was clear from Colorado - we saw one of our best players get hit HARD and we're here to back him up, regardless of whether the hit was clean or not.

That's all I'm saying needs to happen next time one of our biggest stars (and most important players) has something like this happen.

Remember, I already said that I understand why this didn't happen last night (most people missed the play entirely) but I'm saying that I want to see SOMEONE respond to the next one. Somebody HAS to do something. Doesn't have to be egregious, but something's gotta happen.
I'm with you even though I've been called out for it in past threads. I think any time one of your star players goes down from a big hit, whether clean or dirty, a number should be taken.

SLang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2010, 04:03 PM
  #107
etherialone
dialed in your mom
 
etherialone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The Ether
Country: United Nations
Posts: 12,990
vCash: 500
Maybe, just maybe the will waken TM from his coma and get him to realize that it is alright to play a violent, mean tough style of game from time to time instead of remote control hockey. His system is solid for winning games but, there are times like when your star players are getting run game in and game out until one finally gets injured that its alright to stop and take action.

His dispassionate style has me riled some of the time.

etherialone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2010, 04:05 PM
  #108
DeeMeck
Registered User
 
DeeMeck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,370
vCash: 500
Maybe Doughty will realize he is not invincible and hurry up and sign that contract extension before he gets injured further.

DeeMeck is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2010, 04:10 PM
  #109
outofrange
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 740
vCash: 500
Ugh this injury has me so pissed off. Doughty's been playing more physically and talking more smack so I hope he spends this time at least chilling out. We can't afford to lose him. Our top defense looked scary bad without him even though that's not fair to the other dmen since their pairings were mixed up on short notice.

I also want to knock Cole on his ass because even if it wasn't fully intentional, that ******* isn't the cleanest player out there.

outofrange is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2010, 04:19 PM
  #110
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
 
Ziggy Stardust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 31,549
vCash: 500
Sitting him for seven days is precautionary. No reason to risk losing Doughty to further injury by rushing him back in the lineup. I'm sure if he had his way, he'd be back in the lineup.

Ziggy Stardust is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2010, 04:59 PM
  #111
bral
Go Kings!
 
bral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Corona,CA
Posts: 528
vCash: 500
I'm not as optomistic as some of you. "at least a week" basically means "concussion like symptoms" to me.

bral is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2010, 05:05 PM
  #112
Moses Doughty
LA's offense offends
 
Moses Doughty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Drewbacca
Country: United States
Posts: 8,096
vCash: 500
Get well soon Drew, hopefully they dont rush him at all

Moses Doughty is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2010, 05:33 PM
  #113
jimmy1100
Registered User
 
jimmy1100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Seattle
Country: United States
Posts: 1,816
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brando View Post
I'm not as optomistic as some of you. "at least a week" basically means "concussion like symptoms" to me.
I would tend to think the same, but it could also be a quote of the 'upper body injury' variety.

i.e. he'll be back soon, but I'll say at least a week so that the next couple of opponents aren't game-planning to see Doughty

Even if it's not that, if there's an injury you want to be over-cautious about, it's a concussion. Let's see what the D can do without Drew out there. Would really love to see us just keep chugging along without him. That would be a very positive sign!

jimmy1100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2010, 05:36 PM
  #114
Cutty Sarkn3ss*
I bet u trade me
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Granada Hills, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,983
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Cutty Sarkn3ss*
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmy1100 View Post
Do you try and take everything I type the wrong way? Advocate a dirty act? I mentioned Bertuzzi and McSorely. The former jumped a guy from behind and rode him face first into the ice and the latter swung his stick baseball-bat-style at a man's head. I mentioned them because that's obviously NOT the response I'm talking about.

Perhaps the confusion is that I mentioned a 5-minute major. In retrospect maybe I should've said fight instigator instead. All I meant was that I don't care if the response costs us a goal or a game, I just want a response PERIOD. ANYTHING at all. You seem to have a great hockey memory, so I'm sure you can think of an instance that I'm talking about.

Here's an example - Jack Johnson's hit on Ryan Smyth two years ago. (When Smyth's head hit the padded end-glass by the bench). His teammates immediately came in and started some ****. Nobody was brutalized in response to a perfectly clean hit, but play was stopped because of the response (and because Smyth was out) and the message was clear from Colorado - we saw one of our best players get hit HARD and we're here to back him up, regardless of whether the hit was clean or not.

That's all I'm saying needs to happen next time one of our biggest stars (and most important players) has something like this happen.

Remember, I already said that I understand why this didn't happen last night (most people missed the play entirely) but I'm saying that I want to see SOMEONE respond to the next one. Somebody HAS to do something. Doesn't have to be egregious, but something's gotta happen.
You're wasting your time arguing with JT. I had the same argument with him last year about Brown's inability to be an actual "CAPTAIN" in regards to standing up for teammates and getting into altercations (Not Fights - Altercations . . scrums, etc). JT clearly doesn't see this important aspect of the game.

BTW, Your post is spot on.

Cutty Sarkn3ss* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2010, 05:55 PM
  #115
jimmy1100
Registered User
 
jimmy1100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Seattle
Country: United States
Posts: 1,816
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cutty Sarkn3ss View Post
You're wasting your time arguing with JT. I had the same argument with him last year about Brown's inability to be an actual "CAPTAIN" in regards to standing up for teammates and getting into altercations (Not Fights - Altercations . . scrums, etc). JT clearly doesn't see this important aspect of the game.

BTW, Your post is spot on.
I'm only keeping the responses to JT going long enough so that I can get a complete statistical breakdown of how what I was saying was wrong.

"Overall team points earned have never shown a statistical increase between teams who did and did not stand up for a player getting hit..."

Just kidding JT. Though I strongly disagree with quite a few of your posts, you are fun to have friendly little debates with.

jimmy1100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2010, 05:57 PM
  #116
JT Dutch*
Cult of Personality
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cutty Sarkn3ss View Post
You're wasting your time arguing with JT. I had the same argument with him last year about Brown's inability to be an actual "CAPTAIN" in regards to standing up for teammates and getting into altercations (Not Fights - Altercations . . scrums, etc). JT clearly doesn't see this important aspect of the game
... Definitely not. I don't at all see the need for guys to receive unneeded penalties and lose games to somehow "avenge" a clean hit. The object is to WIN games. Wanna hit the guy back clean in the next meeting? Great. Altercations and cheap stuff is just that - cheap.

JT Dutch* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2010, 06:10 PM
  #117
Anton Dubinchuk
Danny Markov
 
Anton Dubinchuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 10,001
vCash: 500
Mine is probably the last opinion you want to hear right now, but after reading 5 pages of mostly Kings biased views on the hit, I figured I'd throw in my 2 cents from the other side...

Cole's a tough guy to give a break if you're playing against him, he doesn't draw much sympathy. He whines and complains non-stop, and when he's on his game he's a beast to play against. However, one thing he's never been known as is a dirty player. Clearly whether or not the hit was intentional will never be known, but he certainly does not have a history of "dirty" hits, so I'll put that out there first.

Second, while as you all have said that teams have been targeting Doughty lately, if the Canes were to target anyone it'd be JJ, I don't know about the team but the fans certainly haven't forgiven him yet...

Third, let's get to the actual hit. I'd say at the time the puck was gone around a second, and softer hits by the boards are finished a second (sometimes even two seconds) after the puck has left all the time. Viewing the "lateness" of the hit separately from the magnitude of impact, this can be hardly called a "late hit." If it was, all of those hits on the forecheck behind the boards would have to be called as well. It's called finishing a check.

There's nothing against hitting hard in the league, so I'll move to the hit to the head argument. From the angles we've got, it's not apparent whether or not the hit was actually to the head (I know you're angry, but you guys know it's unclear). Whether or not it was doesn't matter if it's unclear on the video. IMO, Cole looked like he was just turning to join the rush, and Doughty had his head down...

While I can agree in principle that this could indeed be a dirty hit, I don't think something that COULD be a dirty hit warrants a suspension. I think it should be like instant replay; unless they see irrefutable evidence, no suspensions should be dished out. I'm not TOO biased as a fan, there have been suspensions of Canes players over the years that I've absolutely agreed with. But I don't think that the video shows enough evidence to warrant a suspension, Especially not an 8 to 10 game one like some of you were suggesting.

I'm not saying that if this was Staal getting hit that I wouldn't react the same as you all would, but I'm pretty sure that if this hit was identical except that it was Doughty on Cole, you guys would be incensed that a suspension was even brought up.

Anyway, there's my 2 cents (might've rambled long enough for it to be considered 3 cents, but whatever). Good luck in the season, and best of wishes to Doughty, as he's one of my favorite players.

Anton Dubinchuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2010, 06:13 PM
  #118
JT Dutch*
Cult of Personality
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jgusta21 View Post
but I'm pretty sure that if this hit was identical except that it was Doughty on Cole, you guys would be incensed that a suspension was even brought up.
... Agree 100%. Good post.

JT Dutch* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2010, 06:14 PM
  #119
Jebus
That boulder?
 
Jebus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 445
vCash: 500
I know I'm beating a dead horse, but I still can't believe there are some people here, on the main board and at the NHL think this hit was incidental. This was a dirty, completely pointless, and late hit to the head that is knocking out one of the leagues bright young stars for at least a week. Even if you don't think it's suspension worthy, or targeting the head, I don't see how anyone can argue it was incidental contact. Watch the video! Cole is hunting Doughty for 30 feet and then, at the point of contact pulls into a full-Shuchuk.

Jebus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2010, 06:31 PM
  #120
JDM
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 9,968
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jgusta21 View Post
Mine is probably the last opinion you want to hear right now, but after reading 5 pages of mostly Kings biased views on the hit, I figured I'd throw in my 2 cents from the other side...

Cole's a tough guy to give a break if you're playing against him, he doesn't draw much sympathy. He whines and complains non-stop, and when he's on his game he's a beast to play against. However, one thing he's never been known as is a dirty player. Clearly whether or not the hit was intentional will never be known, but he certainly does not have a history of "dirty" hits, so I'll put that out there first.

Second, while as you all have said that teams have been targeting Doughty lately, if the Canes were to target anyone it'd be JJ, I don't know about the team but the fans certainly haven't forgiven him yet...

Third, let's get to the actual hit. I'd say at the time the puck was gone around a second, and softer hits by the boards are finished a second (sometimes even two seconds) after the puck has left all the time. Viewing the "lateness" of the hit separately from the magnitude of impact, this can be hardly called a "late hit." If it was, all of those hits on the forecheck behind the boards would have to be called as well. It's called finishing a check.

There's nothing against hitting hard in the league, so I'll move to the hit to the head argument. From the angles we've got, it's not apparent whether or not the hit was actually to the head (I know you're angry, but you guys know it's unclear). Whether or not it was doesn't matter if it's unclear on the video. IMO, Cole looked like he was just turning to join the rush, and Doughty had his head down...

While I can agree in principle that this could indeed be a dirty hit, I don't think something that COULD be a dirty hit warrants a suspension. I think it should be like instant replay; unless they see irrefutable evidence, no suspensions should be dished out. I'm not TOO biased as a fan, there have been suspensions of Canes players over the years that I've absolutely agreed with. But I don't think that the video shows enough evidence to warrant a suspension, Especially not an 8 to 10 game one like some of you were suggesting.

I'm not saying that if this was Staal getting hit that I wouldn't react the same as you all would, but I'm pretty sure that if this hit was identical except that it was Doughty on Cole, you guys would be incensed that a suspension was even brought up.

Anyway, there's my 2 cents (might've rambled long enough for it to be considered 3 cents, but whatever). Good luck in the season, and best of wishes to Doughty, as he's one of my favorite players.
Good post. Smart post. I agree that the video is inconclusive on the point of contact.

My contention with the hit is the timing. I don't think this is the same as the hits you talk about along the boards. I've seen hits this late called as penalties and I've seen this same hit get two and three game suspensions this season. I mostly care about consistency with Colin Campbell, of which I feel he has shown none.

I wanted a 2 game suspension for this hit, because it was late and from the side. I don't think it warranted more. Yes, Doughty started to turn into it, but I count 2.5 seconds from the time Doughty passes the puck to the time he is hit. This brings us to intent.

Its increasingly becoming unclear to me how much intent factors in to suspensions. Sometimes it seems the letter of the law is all that matters and then other times intent becomes a major factor. That bothers me. Did Cole intend to hurt Doughty? Who knows? Did he intend to hit him? Yes. Did he know Doughty didn't have the puck and therefore was not fair game, either the answer is yes or Cole wasn't paying attention to play. Had he known Doughty didn't have the puck for that long, then he should have spun away and not leaned into him. If he didn't know then Cole must have been targeting Doughty the whole way. Again, either one speaks to intent.

Should intent play into suspensions? That's a different argument, but the league should be consistent on the weight of perceived intention.

3 games for Doan when I thought Hjalmarsson's hit was much worse.

2 games for Hjalmarsson when all Wiz did was make a gesture.

I've never liked the way the league handles suspensions and this just reinforces their lack of consistency in my mind.

JDM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2010, 06:44 PM
  #121
Anton Dubinchuk
Danny Markov
 
Anton Dubinchuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 10,001
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDM View Post
Good post. Smart post. I agree that the video is inconclusive on the point of contact.

My contention with the hit is the timing. I don't think this is the same as the hits you talk about along the boards. I've seen hits this late called as penalties and I've seen this same hit get two and three game suspensions this season. I mostly care about consistency with Colin Campbell, of which I feel he has shown none.

I wanted a 2 game suspension for this hit, because it was late and from the side. I don't think it warranted more. Yes, Doughty started to turn into it, but I count 2.5 seconds from the time Doughty passes the puck to the time he is hit. This brings us to intent.

Its increasingly becoming unclear to me how much intent factors in to suspensions. Sometimes it seems the letter of the law is all that matters and then other times intent becomes a major factor. That bothers me. Did Cole intend to hurt Doughty? Who knows? Did he intend to hit him? Yes. Did he know Doughty didn't have the puck and therefore was not fair game, either the answer is yes or Cole wasn't paying attention to play. Had he known Doughty didn't have the puck for that long, then he should have spun away and not leaned into him. If he didn't know then Cole must have been targeting Doughty the whole way. Again, either one speaks to intent.

Should intent play into suspensions? That's a different argument, but the league should be consistent on the weight of perceived intention.

3 games for Doan when I thought Hjalmarsson's hit was much worse.

2 games for Hjalmarsson when all Wiz did was make a gesture.

I've never liked the way the league handles suspensions and this just reinforces their lack of consistency in my mind.
Point well taken. Consistency does seem to be a problem with the league. Especially with Hjalmersson getting just 2 games for a dirty hit when meanwhile Wiz got two games for making me laugh harder than I have in a long time

I suppose as a biased Canes fan I don't mind the league being inconsistent on THIS particular incident but I certainly see where you're coming from. I suppose I'm more conservative on the whole open ice hits issue, I've always kind of preferred if the league would let them play a little more, but since they have been giving out suspensions for hits such as this lately, I can understand the opposing argument.

We're never going to agree on this; you're rightly angry that your star player got hurt and I don't want to see my favorite player get suspended over an arguable hit. I think the most important thing is that Doughty's not too hurt.

PS: Even if Cole isn't suspended for those two games that many are calling for, he'll be such a non-factor as he always is that he might as well be suspended for all we know

Anton Dubinchuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2010, 06:51 PM
  #122
JT Dutch*
Cult of Personality
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,548
vCash: 500
Drew without puck:


Point of contact:


Time elapsed:


... You make the call. Looks like about a second and change to me.

JT Dutch* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2010, 06:57 PM
  #123
Anton Dubinchuk
Danny Markov
 
Anton Dubinchuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 10,001
vCash: 500
And once again I'll say that along the boards a second and change happens all the time without anyone thinking anything about it... Seeing as there aren't separate finishing a hit rules for hits against the boards vs. in the open ice, these can be legitimately compared for argument's sake. If you call this a late hit, you've got to call finishing hits along the boards late hits.

This is all my opinion of course...

Anton Dubinchuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2010, 06:58 PM
  #124
Buddy The Elf
Kings!
 
Buddy The Elf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Belmont Shore
Country: United States
Posts: 9,780
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Dutch View Post
... Do the rules say you can't finish off a check? How much time elapsed between Doughty losing possession of the puck and the hit? About a second?

Whatever, like I said up there I'm sure you wouldn't be saying it was a dirty hit if Doughty delivered it. Over-reaction is the theme here, I get it.
After the Doan hit on the Ducks player (don't remember his name), one of the guys on the NHL network mentioned that a player as half a second to make hit after the puck is out of their possesion (he mentioned that was the rule). He mentioned that the Doan hit was over a full second after. I dont' know if that is the rule or not and I can't find it in the rule book. If it is true, then that was absolutely a late hit. Whether or not it was a "hit to the head" would be a different story but if the rule is in fact half a second on a late hit, there is no question that was at bare minimum a penalty.

I don't persaonlly know if whether Cole was trying to hit Doughty. I think he probably was trying to hit him but wasn't aiming for the head. The bottom line is he could have pulled up. He had plenty of time to avoid contact. But if he was trying to hit him and it was late, whether or not it was a hit to the head isn't of any consequence, he already committed the foul with the late hit.

I'm with the others. I think if NHL is suspending Doan et al, this needs to be a suspension. I wouldn't look at it any other way if it was Doughty. And if it was Doughty on Cole, given Cole's injury history, you can almost guarantee there would have been 1) a reaction for the Canes' players (which has nothing to do with suspensions etc, just wanted throw that in there because the inaction be the Kings palyers is disconcerting to me personally) and 2) a suspension would be given. That is just the way Colin Campbell seems to work. There isn't a whole lot of rhyme or reason to his actions.

Buddy The Elf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2010, 07:00 PM
  #125
JDM
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 9,968
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Dutch View Post
... You make the call. Looks like about a second and change to me.
Thanks for posting the pics.

Its impossible to tell from those which side the fractions of a second are on, but the videos say 1:05 to 1:03. So based off those its two seconds. It could be 1.5 or 2.5 though. I just watched it over an over, counting out loud between when he released the puck and when he was hit and I count 2.5 seconds (I count two full counts and aaaaalmost get to a third). Obviously a stopwatch is the only really accurate way to tell, but based on just the pictures you would have to say 2 seconds had elapsed.

JDM 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 09:47 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.