GDT: Vancouver @ Chicago - Apr 17th

Torres hit a guy in a vulnerable position. If it were anywhere but behind the net, he would have been suspended.

Stupid rules in the NHL are destroying the game.

You should not be able to hit a guy in a vulnerable position no matter where you are on the ice. Half the time in the corners, you've got your head down because you're working on getting the puck out into the open, and down ice.

Torres AGAIN, knew what he was doing. The guy is going to kill someone with these hits and that's what it's going to take to remove these style of hits from the game.

Losers, all of them that hit someone in a vulnerable position.

Concussions are not fun, and can ruin your life. I'd take any other injury other than concussions. Other parts can be repaired, the brain is forever.
 
i find it interesting that the NHL said Torres wasn't suspended because the hit happened behind the net. so i guess the Stoll hit was not behind the net?

if the Stoll hit is a game, the Torres hit should be 5 without question. Seabrook is accepting the puck, Torres hit him in the head at full speed from the blindside. that's the same hit Cooke put on Savard but behind the net instead of in front of it.

the NHL better figure this thing out. Stoll (never been suspended) gets a game for pinning a guy against the boards behind the net when no penalty was called while Torres (with a previous suspension a few weeks ago) targets Seabrook's head at full speed in the same area of the ice and gets a penalty and doesn't get suspended.

are we now suspending people based on if the player that gets hit is hurt? let's just put the guys in shorts and take away the sticks and we can have guys rolling around on the ground grabbing their ankles all the time. wait, that sport already exists - but that's the way we are heading with these rulings.
 
gretzky99 said:
i find it interesting that the NHL said Torres wasn't suspended because the hit happened behind the net. so i guess the Stoll hit was not behind the net? if the Stoll hit is a game, the Torres hit should be 5 without question. Seabrook is accepting the puck, Torres hit him in the head at full speed from the blindside. that's the same hit Cooke put on Savard but behind the net instead of in front of it.

the NHL better figure this thing out. Stoll (never been suspended) gets a game for pinning a guy against the boards behind the net when no penalty was called while Torres (with a previous suspension a few weeks ago) targets Seabrook's head at full speed in the same area of the ice and gets a penalty and doesn't get suspended.

are we now suspending people based on if the player that gets hit is hurt? let's just put the guys in shorts and take away the sticks and we can have guys rolling around on the ground grabbing their ankles all the time. wait, that sport already exists - but that's the way we are heading with these rulings.
Click to expand...

Stoll was suspended because he targeted the head with his forearm, which is completely different from the Torres hit. The Torres type of hit needs to be removed from the game because Seabrook was in a vulnerable position and could not properly protect himself. Players have to have some respect for their opponents.

Paul

Go:canucks:
 
pwag31 said:
Stoll was suspended because he targeted the head with his forearm, which is completely different from the Torres hit. The Torres type of hit needs to be removed from the game because Seabrook was in a vulnerable position and could not properly protect himself. Players have to have some respect for their opponents.

Paul

Go:canucks:
Click to expand...

the point is that the Torres hit was at full speed, Seabrook didn't have the puck and Torres got a penalty. the Stoll hit was a pin against the boards and no penalty was called.

i'm not arguing the Stoll hit and whether it deserved a suspension (i don't think it did). but if it is worth 1 game, the Torres hit was at least 5X worse.
 
NHL ruling

"When Rule 48 (Illegal Check to the Head) was unanimously adopted by the General Managers in March 2010, there was no intention to make this type of shoulder hit to the head illegal. In fact, at that time, we distributed a video to all players and teams that showed a similar hit on a defenseman by an attacking forward coming from the opposite direction behind the net and stated that this is a 'legal play'.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=560159


Personal thoughts - I'm sick and tired of ALL of the s&*^storms that have been coming up in hockey. It's a great sport, and all of the blowups are taking away from what should be the best part of the season. I blame much of this squarely on the heads of the game for not making sure the rules are VERY clear so that people know what can and can't be done.
 
kmitchel said:
I blame much of this squarely on the heads of the game for not making sure the rules are VERY clear so that people know what can and can't be done.
Click to expand...

I agree 100% with this statement. They need to make the rules more "black & white" for the future with no "grey area". Most hits can be labeled as dirty, blindside, or as a headshot, it depends on the viewer. Starting next season they should come up with a sold, set-in-stone rule that fans and referees can understand and enforce. Its way too confusing right now as to what is legal, illegal, and suspendible.
 
gretzky99 said:
the point is that the Torres hit was at full speed, Seabrook didn't have the puck and Torres got a penalty. the Stoll hit was a pin against the boards and no penalty was called.

i'm not arguing the Stoll hit and whether it deserved a suspension (i don't think it did). but if it is worth 1 game, the Torres hit was at least 5X worse.
Click to expand...

But that is an opinion based on how it looked.

Based on the video the league sent out to the teams, the Torres hit was a legal hit in terms of targeting the head, but still was interference. ( I thought he should have received a game or 2 after seeing the hit,but the league tied their own hands.)

And I still think the instigator rule is making this worse, and the gear the players are wearing is an issue as well. Someone ( was it Suitman? ) else brought up the gear issue before and I completey agree that something needs to be done.
 
pwag31 said:
But that is an opinion based on how it looked.

Based on the video the league sent out to the teams, the Torres hit was a legal hit in terms of targeting the head, but still was interference. ( I thought he should have received a game or 2 after seeing the hit,but the league tied their own hands.)

And I still think the instigator rule is making this worse, and the gear the players are wearing is an issue as well. Someone ( was it Suitman? ) else brought up the gear issue before and I completey agree that something needs to be done.
Click to expand...

what part is opinion? that Torres was at full speed, that Seabrook didn't have the puck or that Torres got a penalty.

it was clearly an illegal hit (hence the penalty), he clearly hit him from the blindside in the head (not just the head). it was very similar to the Cooke hit on Savard. Seabrook was looking at the puck and was leveled from the blind side up high. the only difference is it took place behind the net.

i agree that there needs to be a clear definition of what is legal and what isn't. there are other issues as well including helmets, gear, mouthguards, etc. but you have a hockey play in Stoll's hit and he gets a game and a second hit that is illegal (interference) that resembles the hit that cause so much of the "head hit" storm and there is no suspension. i don't see how that is ok. it makes the NHL look like they have no idea what they are doing.

how hard is it to come up with a few sentences that defines what an illegal hit is? it's not good for the NHL that this thread is four pages and there isn't agreement on whether the hit was clean or not. VAN and CHI fans aside, everyone else is mixed. we follow the game and are the core fans and even we are confused over it. how can this be good for the NHL?
 
Your opinion that it was 5X times worse then the Stoll hit.

Torres got a penalty for interference, not for a hit to the head. Stoll was suspended because he hit White in the head with his forearm and smashed his face into the glass.

The fact that it happened behind the net is the big difference as the league has told the players ( and sent them a video ) that the hit is a legal hit behing the net. The Cooke hit was not behind the net so with regards to the rules, it is looked at differently.

Maybe this will get the GM's moving on this topic and get the rules changed.



gretzky99 said:
what part is opinion? that Torres was at full speed, that Seabrook didn't have the puck or that Torres got a penalty.

it was clearly an illegal hit (hence the penalty), he clearly hit him from the blindside in the head (not just the head). it was very similar to the Cooke hit on Savard. Seabrook was looking at the puck and was leveled from the blind side up high. the only difference is it took place behind the net.

i agree that there needs to be a clear definition of what is legal and what isn't. there are other issues as well including helmets, gear, mouthguards, etc. but you have a hockey play in Stoll's hit and he gets a game and a second hit that is illegal (interference) that resembles the hit that cause so much of the "head hit" storm and there is no suspension. i don't see how that is ok. it makes the NHL look like they have no idea what they are doing.

how hard is it to come up with a few sentences that defines what an illegal hit is? it's not good for the NHL that this thread is four pages and there isn't agreement on whether the hit was clean or not. VAN and CHI fans aside, everyone else is mixed. we follow the game and are the core fans and even we are confused over it. how can this be good for the NHL?
Click to expand...
 
but the point is that Stoll's hit was a "hockey play" in he was clearly pinning White against the boards. the Torres hit was much more vicious in nature and clearly with much more intent to do damage than the Stoll hit. they both took place in the same area of the ice.

you tell me, which hit was more dangerous?

pwag31 said:
Your opinion that it was 5X times worse then the Stoll hit.

Torres got a penalty for interference, not for a hit to the head. Stoll was suspended because he hit White in the head with his forearm and smashed his face into the glass.

The fact that it happened behind the net is the big difference as the league has told the players ( and sent them a video ) that the hit is a legal hit behing the net. The Cooke hit was not behind the net so with regards to the rules, it is looked at differently.

Maybe this will get the GM's moving on this topic and get the rules changed.
Click to expand...
 
gretzky99 said:
but the point is that Stoll's hit was a "hockey play" in he was clearly pinning White against the boards. the Torres hit was much more vicious in nature and clearly with much more intent to do damage than the Stoll hit. they both took place in the same area of the ice.

you tell me, which hit was more dangerous?
Click to expand...

I think both are dangerous hits. Both players did not have the puck and didn't expect to be nailed from behind.

With an "open hit" (Torres) there's the impact to the shoulder and potentially some whiplash effect. With a hit against the boards (Stoll), the skull hits the boards and the head absorbs all the energy. Some may argue that the latter has a greater chance for a concussion b/c the brain can hit the skull with greater impact.

It's a game of inches. If White was standing more straight, Stoll's forearm would have hit his shoulders instead. If Seabrook turned a bit more, Torres would have hit him in the chest. Both would have been legal hits/hockey plays, although both border on charging/interference.
 
How is hitting a guy straight on a "blindside" hit? this was not a blind side hit. He came straight at him. Seabrook had his head down and got leveled. It was only even called a penalty because seabrook stayed down. This is a part of the game.
 
Regardless of what you think about the hit, you are delusional if you think that the Stoll/White hit and the Torres/Seabrook hit are anywhere near the same thing.

Seabrook is skating into traffic and gets drilled - White is protecting the puck with his back to the forchecker and gets a fore-arm shiver to the back of the neck - to compare the two is rediculous.

I get all the "blindside" "targeting of the head" issues going on but at what point is the league going to recognize that there are players of different sizes and put some of the safety responsibility on the "victim" so-to-speak. I can tell you what every coach from Peewees to College would have told me if I would have gotten my bell rung like Seabrook did - and it has nothing to do with the integrity of the other player. You skate into traffic, looking behind you for the puck and you are asking to get lit up, just the way it is.

That being said - I really like how Seabrook plays and I know he has been dinged a couple times by plays significantly more cheap than this (Abdelcater and Wisnowski come to mind) - I hope he doesn't end up going down the Mush Brain Highway too early, he's a damn good player.
 
my point that isn't getting across very well is the Stoll hit is a pin against the boards. if you look at it White is bent over quite a bit and in an awkward position. if White is standing up the Stoll "hit" is just a pin and the elbow is in the back.

i understand the NHL is hyper-sensitive to head hits and because Stoll got him in the head even if it wasn't the target of the hit, i get the penalty. i still don't agree because i think suspensions should be for guys who target and intend to injure, but that's besides the point.

i've watched the seabrook hit a couple of times and it looks quite a bit like the savard hit.

watch it here...it is "blindside" in the same way Savard was. unsuspecting player looking the other way waiting to receive the puck.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeZDE9H3_vU

he leads with his shoulder, leaves his feet and hits him in the head.

btw, the second hit in the video is a textbook hit. shoulder on shoulder.
 
btw, i should say that the Torres hit itself wasn't suspendable in my opinion if Seabrook had the puck and it wasn't blindside. i think you could give him two minutes possibly, but the actual hit wasn't that bad.

to me, it's about recognizing the position the player is in. Seabrook is receiving the puck and not looking at Torres. he isn't braced for a hit - and he shouldn't be because he doesn't have the puck yet.

Torres could make the same play without blowing Seabrook up. i'm all for big hits but not if it's from the side (which this was) and not when they don't have the puck. that's what makes this hit suspension worthy to me.
 
GrimUSMC said:
How is hitting a guy straight on a "blindside" hit? this was not a blind side hit. He came straight at him. Seabrook had his head down and got leveled. It was only even called a penalty because seabrook stayed down. This is a part of the game.
Click to expand...

This is what I have been saying. Skate with your head up or pay the price. Is this not Hockey?
 
gretzky99 said:
my point that isn't getting across very well is the Stoll hit is a pin against the boards. if you look at it White is bent over quite a bit and in an awkward position. if White is standing up the Stoll "hit" is just a pin and the elbow is in the back.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right, he pinned his face to the glass / boards using his forearm against the back of White's head.

When you suffered your recent blow to the head did you spend 15 minutes in a quiet room? Have you been cleared by the mods here to return to full contact? Just wonderin'.

CRM
 
DogfoodSoup said:
You're absolutely right, he pinned his face to the glass / boards using his forearm against the back of White's head.

When you suffered your recent blow to the head did you spend 15 minutes in a quiet room? Have you been cleared by the mods here to return to full contact? Just wonderin'.

CRM
Click to expand...

thanks for the cheap shot. Canucks fan, I'm guessing?
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
389,450
Messages
2,232,676
Members
4,144
Latest member
Collector Driven
Back
Top