Started By
Message
re: The Blues 2014 Playoff Thread.
Posted on 4/19/14 at 7:38 pm to MIZ_STL
Posted on 4/19/14 at 7:38 pm to MIZ_STL
quote:
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.
You have 3 seconds to finish a hit after a player gets rid of the puck.
The way it's usually determined is 3 strides. If you're 3 strides from a guy who gets rid of the puck you can finish your hit.
1
Posted on 4/19/14 at 7:39 pm to Sleeping Tiger
While I said I wouldn't touch on the topic of whether the hit was dirty or not, I agree with Sleeping Tiger and his explanation on this one. The hit was dirty and Sleeping Tiger hit all the reasons why.
This post was edited on 4/19/14 at 7:42 pm
Posted on 4/19/14 at 7:40 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
He knew what he was doing from start to finish. He saw an opportunity to punish Backes and he too full advantage of it.
quote:
Any hockey player would tell you that everything that happened during that hit was deliberate.
Agree, especially at this level of hockey.
This is the mug of a guy "sorry" for accidentally injuring Backes.
Posted on 4/19/14 at 7:41 pm to Sleeping Tiger
Ah, I see Sleeping Tiger. I would counter that that is the interpretation. The rule makes no mention of 3 strides, as far as I can tell. So, while I'm aware of the 3 stride interpretation, I have always considered it more a guideline than a rule.
Posted on 4/19/14 at 7:41 pm to Sleeping Tiger
It's always a head hunt when the captain of the opposition is on the boards with the puck and you've got a shot at a hit.
He was looking to make a big hit and make it hurt (like he should) but I don't think he was looking to take him out with a bad hit.
You can surely understand that. I've played plenty of hockey. We don't hit, but I've been penalized a number of times for getting into a quick decision situation and not having the skills to not hit a dude. It's never the intent, but it happens.
If I'm in the NHL and I see dude on the boards and I can rough him up with a nice hit, I'm in for it. I'm going to slam his arse into the boards as much as I possibly can and make him aware I'm there when he has the puck. I just don't see how that could ever be considered bad when the situation is like it was.
The result of the play matters when it comes to discipline, and he got a misconduct. I just don't think it was "dirty."
He was looking to make a big hit and make it hurt (like he should) but I don't think he was looking to take him out with a bad hit.
You can surely understand that. I've played plenty of hockey. We don't hit, but I've been penalized a number of times for getting into a quick decision situation and not having the skills to not hit a dude. It's never the intent, but it happens.
If I'm in the NHL and I see dude on the boards and I can rough him up with a nice hit, I'm in for it. I'm going to slam his arse into the boards as much as I possibly can and make him aware I'm there when he has the puck. I just don't see how that could ever be considered bad when the situation is like it was.
The result of the play matters when it comes to discipline, and he got a misconduct. I just don't think it was "dirty."
This post was edited on 4/19/14 at 7:44 pm
Posted on 4/19/14 at 7:44 pm to kilo
Yeah, that smile is not an apologetic one.
This thing is going to get rowdy at the United Center.
This thing is going to get rowdy at the United Center.
Posted on 4/19/14 at 7:45 pm to Mizzeaux
It's on Seabrook to avoid making first contact upwards through a defenseless player's head in this situation. Seabrook knows this and Seabrook has the talent to slow. The fact that he instead left his feet through the hit makes it very obviously dirty.
Posted on 4/19/14 at 7:46 pm to MIZ_STL
quote:
Ah, I see Sleeping Tiger. I would counter that that is the interpretation. The rule makes no mention of 3 strides, as far as I can tell. So, while I'm aware of the 3 stride interpretation, I have always considered it more a guideline than a rule.
I don't have my rule book handy, but I'm almost positive there is a specific mention of having 3 seconds to finish a hit.
Posted on 4/19/14 at 7:49 pm to MIZ_STL
quote:
It's on Seabrook to avoid making first contact upwards through a defenseless player's head in this situation
Only if the defenseless player is then thrown into the boards. He'd then be guilty of boarding and be penalized.
As far as I understand it, the reasons Seabrook will or won't be suspended has nothing to do with Backes' state of defense against a hit, but because of the contact to the head.
I could be wrong though. I'm not completely aware of the rules, but I could swear the only time a player's defensive awareness matters is during a boarding call.
Posted on 4/19/14 at 7:49 pm to MIZ_STL
What really frustrated me is during the second before the hawks first score I was excited about the blues chances and if they did advance it didn't seem this series was going to maim either team. There have been hard hits around, and until the third period it didn't seem either team was going for those attempt to injure plays. After tonight though I could see the series getting out of hand and whichever team advances still ultimately being the loser.
Then again though the blues are notorious for leaving their players to hang out to dry and not retaliating.
Then again though the blues are notorious for leaving their players to hang out to dry and not retaliating.
Posted on 4/19/14 at 7:50 pm to Sleeping Tiger
One thing is for sure, the NHL better hope game 3 is close in score as the game moves on because if its a more lopsided score later in the game it will be time to pay the piper and shite could go nuclear in this series.
Posted on 4/19/14 at 7:51 pm to Mizzoufan26
Not to turn a serious discussion into a funny one, but even if the Blues advance they'll be a loser based on history.
You're welcome for the levity.
You're welcome for the levity.
Posted on 4/19/14 at 7:51 pm to kilo
Very true.
Things will get wild if a game is over before the end of 3rd.
Things will get wild if a game is over before the end of 3rd.
This post was edited on 4/19/14 at 7:52 pm
Posted on 4/19/14 at 7:53 pm to Sleeping Tiger
I only checked out the interference section. The 3 stride explanation is very likely codified in another section.
This post was edited on 4/19/14 at 7:56 pm
Posted on 4/19/14 at 7:58 pm to Mizzeaux
quote:
but even if the Blues advance they'll be a loser based on history.
Truth, but this team has done pretty well this year and looked good the first two games.
West coast teams have dominated us though, and the Ducks are looking very good.
Posted on 4/19/14 at 9:18 pm to Mizzoufan26
I just rewatched the hit video a couple times for the first time since the game. On a few playthroughs, I watched Seabrook after the play and his reactions. The guy is fricking goon. You can clearly see him smirking/laughing/taking pleasure in the fact that David Backes was having trouble standing/showing signs of a concussion. Seabrook should be out for the series.
Edit: I'm also not backing down on interference. 3 seconds is an outrageously long time. From reddit: "Players are often given up to a second, sure, but two seconds would be blatant interference. The hit by Aaron Rome on Nathan Horton in 2011 was considered interference and it was barely 1 full second (29 frames of video at 30 frames per second) after Horton lost possession. The lateness of the hit was a qualifying factor in why he was suspended."
Edit 2: Folks on reddit noted that on their cbc feed, Keith could be heard taunting Backes with "Wakey, wakey Backes."
Edit: I'm also not backing down on interference. 3 seconds is an outrageously long time. From reddit: "Players are often given up to a second, sure, but two seconds would be blatant interference. The hit by Aaron Rome on Nathan Horton in 2011 was considered interference and it was barely 1 full second (29 frames of video at 30 frames per second) after Horton lost possession. The lateness of the hit was a qualifying factor in why he was suspended."
Edit 2: Folks on reddit noted that on their cbc feed, Keith could be heard taunting Backes with "Wakey, wakey Backes."
This post was edited on 4/19/14 at 9:32 pm
Posted on 4/19/14 at 9:33 pm to MIZ_STL
It was a late hit in my opinion. It wasnt like Backes had possession and made a pass either, he wiffed at the puck, the puck moved 10 feet away and Kieth made a play around the boards to other way.
Check out this video at the :46 second mark the chirping directed at Backes while he is clearly in trouble from that hit. ITs the CBC Canadian feed. LINK
fricking classless. From the coach down to the players.
Check out this video at the :46 second mark the chirping directed at Backes while he is clearly in trouble from that hit. ITs the CBC Canadian feed. LINK
fricking classless. From the coach down to the players.
This post was edited on 4/19/14 at 9:36 pm
Posted on 4/19/14 at 9:51 pm to kilo
Yeah, that's what the redditors were referring to. You can clearly here a Hawks player taunting Backes with "Wakey, wakey" chirps. You can see Seabrook smiling ear to ear after seeing the damage done to Backes.
Posted on 4/19/14 at 9:52 pm to kilo
quote:
It was a late hit in my opinion. It wasnt like Backes had possession and made a pass either, he wiffed at the puck, the puck moved 10 feet away and Kieth made a play around the boards to other way.
Check out this video at the :46 second mark the chirping directed at Backes while he is clearly in trouble from that hit. ITs the CBC Canadian feed. LINK
fricking classless. From the coach down to the players.
What a bunch of motherfricking punks. I hope Keith and Seabrook get their shite skulls pushed in.
Posted on 4/19/14 at 10:03 pm to Mizz-SEC
Keith and Seabrook are both bitch made punks. Keith in that video with a blatant slash.
Page 6 of 15
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News