GDT: Vancouver @ Chicago - Apr 17th

[tiger tiger]

If (more like when) the Canucks win this series, and if they win the West, I am hoping the Flyers are the East winners as I would love to see Pronger, Carcillo, Coburn, Powe, and a few other big physical guys pound the snot out of these Canucks. The Hawks are soft this year, no doubt, so I don't blame the Nucks for playing the way they are. Two years of frustration at the hands of the Hawks so they are finally getting the payback they want so bad. But, when they come up against a team that isn't soft, I hope they get a heavy dose of their own medicine. Not sure there are any teams in the West that can out physical the Nucks, but there are a couple teams in the East that will hammer on them and that's wen they start taking a bunch of really bad penalties and losing their cool.

First, are you calling the Hawks soft?

Originally I thought the Bruins would fight the Flyers for the eastern finals. If the Bruins don't get past the Habs, I think the Flyers will come out of the east. But the Flyers will need Pronger back and some decent goaltending from anyone. The Flyers can't be undisciplined though cuz the Cancuks PP will rip apart their goalie. Plus the Flyers should worry about the Sabres first.

 

[iidaemmi]

:beer:

:canucks:

:beer:

Harri

 

[Bobbylou]

yes the flyers need to worry about buffalo first. and right on they will tear them apart on the power play i still think washington will come out of the east and boy would that be a good series Canucks and Caps. Canucks win in 6.

 

[tiger tiger]

I just don't know if the Caps defense and goaltending are good enough. Mind you, none of the teams in the east seem as complete as the Canucks or Wings. I thought the Bruins would be comparable, but seeing that they're down 0-2, they better figure out a way to get to Price.

Torres better play some more disciplined hockey. If he can't, then Hodgson will find his way back into the lineup. Be aggressive but not stupid, plus he better realize that he's being watched under the microscope.

 

[chadsexington]

I don't see the Torres hit as being a "blindside" hit. He hit him straight on. I think its a great hit nothing more.

It's blind when he's looking the other way. If you punch me in the chest while I'm looking off to the right, it's still a cheapshot. Torres couldn't help it since he was going in for the hit, and I don't think it's suspension worthy (but the NHL Wheel of justice will probably give it 10 games.) Originally, I'd said at the time that it was a BS call, but looking back now, it was definitely a minor penalty and the refs did make the right call.

Screencap taken pretty much at the moment of impact. Seabrook wasn't once looking in Torres' direction the whole time:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5149/5630546994_15d5069a9c_m.jpg

It's not a head hit, however, since Torres made contact with the logo and there was no intent to injure. No elbows up, no dirty intent to that play. The only thing that makes it a penalty really is that Seabrook was playing the puck and didn't see Torres coming. Had Torres gone in with his elbows and knocked Seabrook out cold as opposed to just knocking the wind out of him with a huge hit, this would be a different discussion.

 

[sholi2000]

Bye-bye Black Hawks!!

Yep, they're done.

 

[DXFlyers]

Tony cheering for us in the East. I should save that quote.

But we have our issues with Buffalo right now, but we will try.

As far as Torres goes, blindside hit with intent to injure. He targeted the best dman on the team not once, BUT TWICE. Isn't this his 1st game since coming back from his last suspension. I hope he is suspended the entire playoffs and the beginning of the regular. He is the Western conference version of Cooke, a piece of talentless garbage.

 

[kmitchel]

As per @DarrenDreger, no supplementary discipline for Raffi Torres for his hit on Brent Seabrook.

From Ben Kuzma (Van. Province) "It's out there now. No hearing or suspension for Torres hit on Seabrook. Did not violate Rule 48. Different standard for hits behind net."

Bob McKenzie's column on it - http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/bob_mckenzie/?id=362700

 

[DXFlyers]

Color me surprised. Well if you cant outscore them, beat the hell out of them.

 

[pwag31]

Color me surprised. Well if you cant outscore them, beat the hell out of them.

but they did outscore them?

I'm a little surprised by this to be honest. With the way they league has been handling things as of late I really expected a suspension.

Paul

 

[kmitchel]

From one of the journalists that I follow on Twitter - can't recall who - a very similar hit is shown in the March video that was sent out to the teams/players on what was allowed, and a very similar hit was shown in that video and deemed clean.

 

[MMarch]

First, are you calling the Hawks soft?

Compared to last year, absolutely. Look at who they no longer have from last year:

Byfuglien - 6'4" 260lbs

Ladd - 6'2" 200lbs

Eager - 6'2" 230lbs

Burish - 6'0" 190lbs (but feisty, dirty at times, and chippy)

Boynton - 6'1" 220lbs

Sopel - 6'1" 200lbs (unsung hero in the playoffs, took a beating and gave some as well, played key minutes no one thought he could)

Those are guys they got rid of, and that is a lot of beef, playoff experience, and toughness just gone and not really replaced. Then you add in Bolland out of the lineup from a cheap shot, who played against the other teams top line in every playoff series, and shut down some of the best centers in the game, while adding a nasty physical element as well. He made Joe Thornton, Mike Richards, and the Sedin's completley lose all focus and take bad penalties against him, you cannot replace what he brings to the table.

So yes, I am calling the Hawks soft. I am not diminishing the Canucks in any way here. They are big, fast, physical, and they finished first for a reason. they are playing exactly as they should and the way I would expect them to, especially when the Hawks are letting it happen. They are steam rolling the Hawks physically and the Hawks have no response. For as good as Seabrook and Keith are as defenseman, they are not "tough" in the physical department. Meaning, they themselves are tough guys who can take a pounding, but they do not give out a physical beating to their opponents. Seabrook can (and should) play that way, but instead he is letting the Canuck forwards dictate the physical play. I know Coach Q demands they not return the nastiness, but at some point you have to take the muzzle off the dogs and let them return the favor. They are down 3-0 right now, at least let the guys maintain some level of respect and let them hammer the Nucks in return.

This is what really struck me as wrong from Q last night, and last year this would have never happened. In his post game interview, he was asked if Seabrook was sent to the "quiet room" after the hit and cleared to play as he was gone for awhile. Q's response, "I sent him to cool down, he is a big Western Canadian boy and you know what that means, if we didn't calm him down someone from the other team was going to leave on a stretcher". So basically, you tell one of your "franchise" players, and one of your toughest players, that he needs to accept a blindside hit to the head and not stand up for himself or seek retribution. I know it's the playoffs and you are down 2 games to the best team in the league, but you cannot stop a guy like Seabrook (or any hockey player for that matter) from standing up for themselves when they feel wronged. You have to let them stand up for themselves and send a message, not only to the other team but to your own teammates as well. I am very proud of the Hawks for winning last year, I waited 38 years to see them win and honestly wasn't sure if I would see them win in my lifetime. I am very happy that Q was the coach that got them there, but I lost some respect for him last night for keeping the reigns on Seabrook. I wouldn't be surprised if Seabrook and the rest of the Hawks lost some respect for him as well. Hockey is a tough game, nasty, and there are times when you have to say forget it, I am not going to let a team or player punish us in this manner and not respond. The Hawks were already done, no way they will come back against the Canucks, but it would not surprise me if they get blown out tomorrow night and not show much intensity. I know they are a proud group, but letting Torres get away with that and not responding will completely deflate them in my opinion.

 

[cassijon]

the way i look at it is this.

after watching numerous replays of the check, with different angles, the hit was at most borderline. if any other player made this check, we wouldnt be talking about it. but because it was torres, who just came off of the suspension for the eberle hit, most of us, myself included, thought it warranted a suspension.

this hit was far from the kind of hit abdelkader laid on seabrook in game 82 and even that didn't get a suspension.

 

[will-411]

I think the refs got the call right on the ice as the hit occurred before Seabrook had gained possession of the puck of the puck and that's textbook interference. The thing I didn't like with the Torres hit is that he had absolutely no intention of trying to gain control of the puck. I thought checking was supposed to be about out-battling someone for the puck.

Weird, but there are dozens of descriptions in the NHL-rulebook about illegal hits, but no where in the book does it say what constitutes a legal check. Kind of stupid, isn't it?

Cory

 

[MMarch]

I think the refs got the call right on the ice as the hit occurred before Seabrook had gained possession of the puck of the puck and that's textbook interference. The thing I didn't like with the Torres hit is that he had absolutely no intention of trying to gain control of the puck. I thought checking was supposed to be about out-battling someone for the puck.

Weird, but there are dozens of descriptions in the NHL-rulebook about illegal hits, but no where in the book does it say what constitutes a legal check. Kind of stupid, isn't it?

Cory

Completely agree Cory, I thought the NHL made a clear distinction about a player making a blindside hit with no intention of playing the puck? Seabrook never had the puck, he was looking for the pass when he was contacted, and Torres made no attempt to play the puck. Hitting is in place to remove a player from puck possession, not to stop them from accepting a pass. My biggest issue with the hit is exactly that, it was not a hockey play, it was a clear interference hit to the head of a player not in possession of the puck at the time of impact and the player was ina vulnerable position. For everyone blaming Seabrook for not having his head up, um, what exactly was he supposed to do there? He was accepting a pass behind the net, unless they start putting magnets in the puck and on the sticks, they have to look at the puck to see where it's at.

Many people have told me Torres is a head hunter and has a reputation for targetting the head. I am not aware of this as I never followed Torres, but if that's the case a message needs to be sent by the league since he is a repeat offender right? The hit may be deemed OK by the league, but I guarantee most players (other then Canucks) will not agree unless they make the same types of hits (Cooke probably thought it was cool). I think Torres intended to hurt him with the hit, there is no other way to look at it in my opinion. Personally, I thought the hit on Seabrook was far worse then the hit on Eberle, but there is always a double standard for the playoffs and has been for as far back as I can remember.

 

[wingnut888]

I think the refs got the call right on the ice as the hit occurred before Seabrook had gained possession of the puck of the puck and that's textbook interference. The thing I didn't like with the Torres hit is that he had absolutely no intention of trying to gain control of the puck. I thought checking was supposed to be about out-battling someone for the puck.

Weird, but there are dozens of descriptions in the NHL-rulebook about illegal hits, but no where in the book does it say what constitutes a legal check. Kind of stupid, isn't it?

Cory

You know I had no intention of getting in on this conversation as I'm pretty biased toward my hatred of the Hawks and I do like the Canucks. That being said though what Cory has said is the main reason Torres should have been suspended. I've hated Torres for years now as he makes these type of hits all the time. May be a legal hit and if it were from a guy who has never done it before I would probably give him the benefit of the doubt but Torres looks for these hits and the guy is going to hurt someone bad one of these days. To me it should have been a suspension just because of the guy who laid the hit! May be wrong on my part but it's happened too many times before from the same guy!

 

[koondog44]

I have never really followed Torres' play prior to joining the canucks, so I can't say much about his previous questionable hits (I haven't seen them all). However, from watching him in every game this year, I never found him to be a dirty player. He plays hard and needs to throw his body around to be an impact player.

At first, I thought no way last nights hit should that be a suspension. After looking at it from several camera angles and in slow motion, I did kind of change my mind and if he did get suspended, I would have understood. I don't believe there was "intent" to cripple Seabrook, but to just lay him out with a hard hit. If we have to disect a play frame by frame in slow motion to make an "informed decision", then there is no way you can prove any intent when the game is being played at real speed.

Seabrook has to be somewhat accountable for leaving himself in that situation. He has to know to expect some kind of hit coming around the net like that. I guess that is what the league took into consideration when not handing out a suspension.

 

[will-411]

The thing is, you can watch the whole play - Torres identifies that an opportunity to hit Seabrook is arising as soon as the puck is rimmed around the boards toward him - Raffi never has it in his mind that he will go behind the net and walk out with the puck. He makes a predatory decision to hit Seabrook. What will hit what is always a split second issue, but the main issue is that he had no intent of coming out of there with the puck.

This is where I think the NHL is missing the boat by not clearly stating what the purpose of hitting or body checking is in the rule book. We have always assumed it is to separate a person from the puck, but there is no specific acknowledgement of that in the rulebook. We have always accepted that finishing your checks will physically wear down an opponent. That is again only defined by how you go about it. Now players have made careers out of identifying situations where they can punish other players outside of the play for the puck without contravening any intent of the rule and they do it.

The NHL needs to define what the purpose of hitting is in the game and go from there.

And before anyone thinks I'm all for removing hitting from the game - I'm not. I just like to have rules that prevent people from getting hurt and that clearly define what is okay and isn't so that we minimize the grey areas.

Cory

 

[MMarch]

Seabrook has to be somewhat accountable for leaving himself in that situation. He has to know to expect some kind of hit coming around the net like that. I guess that is what the league took into consideration when not handing out a suspension.

I can understand that to a point, but I think the league is doing a bad job here with rule 48 and leaving it open to interpretation and also saying it's OK here on the ice, but not here. Players now are not expecting to get blindsided as the league has told them it is not a legal hit anymore, so I think players will get a false sense of safety in regards to this, like Seabrook, and will end up putting themselves in a vulnerable position now more then they have in the past. If you're going to remove hits to the head from the blindside, it has to be across the board, not illegal in one place on the ice and legal in another.

 

[chadsexington]

The thing I didn't like with the Torres hit is that he had absolutely no intention of trying to gain control of the puck. I thought checking was supposed to be about out-battling someone for the puck.

That's debatable Cory...Seabrook was in the process of getting possession of the puck. Torres had a couple options at that point...either try to skate around him and jockey for the puck, or rub him out and take the puck. If this happened at the blueline where Ben Smith was behind the net going for the puck, I'd be saying different things...but I have every reason to believe Torres was playing for the puck with that hit.

I also still stand by the fact that the refs made the proper call on the ice. The bigger travesty of justice was Ehrhoff's penalty resulting in the first Chicago goal, but that's not what we're discussing right now