Started By
Message
1
Posted on 4/19/14 at 6:58 pm to Mizzoufan26
quote:
The fans need to move on? The blues captain probably won't play again this series due to a dirty arse headshot. How the frick is that a no big deal scenario?
And I'm out.
FWIW, shot wasn't dirty, just circumstance.
Posted on 4/19/14 at 7:00 pm to Mizzoufan26
quote:
Mizzoufan26
So fricking edgy brah, so edgy.
Posted on 4/19/14 at 7:00 pm to Mizzeaux
quote:
FWIW, shot wasn't dirty
Ok smart one
Posted on 4/19/14 at 7:01 pm to Mizzeaux
quote:
And I'm out.
Yea, we can pick it back up next game. Not doing this same song and dance with this desk pilot.
Series is going to be a war the rest of the way. Folks better keep them heads up the rest of the way on both teams.
Posted on 4/19/14 at 7:08 pm to Mizzoufan26
quote:
Ok smart one
Backes lost the puck, Seabrook was preparing to fricking nail a dude on the boards with the puck like he should in that position.
He had less than a second to realize Backes lost the puck and let up from the hit on the ice. Backes, at the same time, mind you, reacts to losing the puck and gets low to turn and play the puck. They collide in a hard/bad hit.
Seabrook didn't see a dude without the puck and launch on him, he didn't follow through on the hit, but it was bad nonetheless. Hell, Seabrook fell with Backes, which is something you don't expect to see when someone's planning on backing a dude into the glass.
It was a split second thing, and it was a bad hit, but it wasn't dirty. Seabrook was ejected and Shannahan will probably hit in with a suspension, but to say it was dirty is dumb. He'll get hit for not being aware of the situation and hitting high, but there wasn't ill intent.
It's no more dirty than a dude that gets ejected for targeting on the football field. Sure, you'll feel it's dirty when it's your player getting laid out, but it really just is what it is.
ETA: Okay, now I'm out.
This post was edited on 4/19/14 at 7:10 pm
Posted on 4/19/14 at 7:16 pm to Mizzeaux
I won't get into whether or not the hit was dirty because that particular issue is of no importance. The NHL has made it clear that, unlike in the United States justice system, motive is not necessary to determine guilt.
When it comes down to it, Seabrook interfered with a player that did not have puck, made initial contact to the head, and left his feet. That's a game misconduct and a multi-game suspension.
When it comes down to it, Seabrook interfered with a player that did not have puck, made initial contact to the head, and left his feet. That's a game misconduct and a multi-game suspension.
This post was edited on 4/19/14 at 7:17 pm
Posted on 4/19/14 at 7:18 pm to MIZ_STL
quote:
That's a game misconduct and a multi-game suspension.
While leaving our captain (coincidence the hit happened to be on him obviously) out for the rest of the series more than likely.
This isn't even touching on the rouge knee that tried to derail sobotka either.
Dirty arse pieces of shite.
This post was edited on 4/19/14 at 7:19 pm
Posted on 4/19/14 at 7:20 pm to Mizzeaux
Puck or no puck really isn't the issue.
You have 3 full seconds to complete a hit after a player gives up the puck.
The issue was he saw his head down and deliberately went for the head. It's one thing to see a guys head down and make him pay, it's another thing to hunt for the head.
The hit was a penalty, but more importantly it was a code breaker. There could be so many hits like that in a game but guys usually don't cross that line.
It wasn't an outrageously dirty hit, but it was dirty and Seabrooks intentions were malicious.
It will be in the back of the Blues mind the rest of the series, chances of a line brawl just went up dramatically.
You have 3 full seconds to complete a hit after a player gives up the puck.
The issue was he saw his head down and deliberately went for the head. It's one thing to see a guys head down and make him pay, it's another thing to hunt for the head.
The hit was a penalty, but more importantly it was a code breaker. There could be so many hits like that in a game but guys usually don't cross that line.
It wasn't an outrageously dirty hit, but it was dirty and Seabrooks intentions were malicious.
It will be in the back of the Blues mind the rest of the series, chances of a line brawl just went up dramatically.
This post was edited on 4/19/14 at 7:22 pm
Posted on 4/19/14 at 7:21 pm to MIZ_STL
quote:
When it comes down to it, Seabrook interfered with a player that did not have puck
He had the puck just before the hit, that isn't an issue.
The head contact and clear intention to make such contact is the issue.
Posted on 4/19/14 at 7:22 pm to Mizzoufan26
quote:That was definitely a dirty play.
This isn't even touching on the rouge knee that tried to derail sobotka either.
Posted on 4/19/14 at 7:24 pm to MIZ_STL
Yes, Sleeping Tiger, interference or not, it was an illegal hit. You could easily check off interference, elbowing, and charging penalties all on that one hit.
This post was edited on 4/19/14 at 7:25 pm
Posted on 4/19/14 at 7:25 pm to Mizzoufan26
quote:
coincidence the hit happened to be on him obviously
No, its not. Seabrook knew who he was getting ready to hit. If folks watch that whole third period it was clear they were targeting him that whole 3rd period. Which is fine in itself but he leaned in a little extra and as way late and Backes wasnt expecting to get hit turning away from a puck he lost as the play went the other way around the boards.
Its was dirty, he will get suspended and the Blues will unleash the kracken on the Hawks in game 3. I wouldnt want to be one of the Hawks players in game 3.
Posted on 4/19/14 at 7:27 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
The issue was he saw his head down and deliberately went for the head. It's one thing to see a guys head down and make him pay, it's another thing to hunt for the head.
My point is that Backes head isn't where it is if he doesn't lose the puck. He was going to make a turn in response to losing the puck. He got low to turn back or turn up, and his head was where it was because of it. Backes wouldn't have been making the move he did if he didn't lose the puck. Meanwhile, Seabrook was already committed to a hit by the time he lost the puck.
Seabrook obviously didn't know what the situation was, because he fricking fell afterwards. If he thought he had Backes in the boards, he wouldn't have fallen he'd have followed through.
I just don't see the ill intent, really.
I guess I'm not out.
ETA: Again, the result is what mattered, and he'll get hit with something. That being said, I take issue with calling it "dirty."
It was bad, it wasn't dirty, and I don't see how it could be said he was aiming to take him out by hitting the head.
This post was edited on 4/19/14 at 7:28 pm
Posted on 4/19/14 at 7:29 pm to MIZ_STL
quote:
Yes, Sleeping Tiger, interference or not, it was an illegal hit. You could easily check off interference, elbowing, and charging penalties all on that one hit.
Wasn't interference, he was within the 3 second window to hit him.
Posted on 4/19/14 at 7:30 pm to Mizzeaux
What response do you have to kilo's accusation that Seabrook had been targeting Backes during the whole 3rd period? I missed missed a lot of the 3rd and didn't pick up on this, but I do remember the announcer mentioning that Seabrook had been targeting Backes.
Posted on 4/19/14 at 7:31 pm to Sleeping Tiger
I don't know where you're getting the 3 second window from. I've never heard of it, and we never played with that as a part of the rule.
Posted on 4/19/14 at 7:33 pm to MIZ_STL
I would expect Seabrook to be targeting him, he's one of the best players on the ice for the Blues. He should slam him against the boards every chance he gets.
Posted on 4/19/14 at 7:36 pm to Mizzeaux
quote:
My point is that Backes head isn't where it is if he doesn't lose the puck. He was going to make a turn in response to losing the puck. He got low to turn back or turn up, and his head was where it was because of it. Backes wouldn't have been making the move he did if he didn't lose the puck. Meanwhile, Seabrook was already committed to a hit by the time he lost the puck.
It was a head hunt. He knew what he was doing from start to finish. He saw an opportunity to punish Backes and he too full advantage of it.
It's impossible to transfer something to words that is understood through experience and seeing things thousands of times. Any hockey player would tell you that everything that happened during that hit was deliberate. Backes losing the puck and changing his head level is really irrelevant.
He saw him in a vulnerable spot, and he wanted to hurt him. Because of that it was dirty.
And I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that he'll be hit with a suspension. It was a dirty hit, but I'm not sure it's will warrant a suspension. We'll see.
This post was edited on 4/19/14 at 7:40 pm
Posted on 4/19/14 at 7:37 pm to Mizzeaux
quote:
I would expect Seabrook to be targeting him, he's one of the best players on the ice for the Blues. He should slam him against the boards every chance he gets.
Yea, thats part of the game. Backes does it all game every game as well. However, there was some extra "love" in that hit from Seabrook towards Backes. We can sit here and argue you between Hawks/Blues fans all we want but the bottom line is nuetral observers think there was intent and it was dirty and fully expect him to get suspended.
If this were reversed and Backes was the one delivering that hit I would be pissed at Backes for being undisciplined, giving a valuable playoff game away and for being dirty and would fully expect him to be suspended.
Dont know.
Page 5 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News