Started By
Message
re: The Blues 2014 Playoff Thread.
Posted on 4/19/14 at 7:36 pm to Mizzeaux
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
3
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
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
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News