| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| sahis34 |
Posted - 11/05/2010 : 14:08:27
I fail to see how hjamarson and thornton each got 2 games, when hjalmarson smashed pomminvilles head against the boards and thornton delivered a blind side hit shoulder to shoulder. there was no contact to the head made in the hit, or doans hit as well
Go OILERS Go!!! |
| 40 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| polishexpress |
Posted - 11/08/2010 : 21:22:44
Good points Elvis, Nucksfan.
I think there is a more serious issue at hand, though, and it is men afraid of hugs. On countless occasions in almost every NHL game, I see grown men trying to skate away as fast as they can from an opposing player trying to display their care and concern with a gentle hug.
Even more horrendous is that the players trying to initiate the hug get penalized!
Yes, the fear of hugs is an epidemic that the NHL must stop.
Hopefully the fear of hugs, headbutting of shoulders, shaft biting, and stick kicking will be addressed promptly. Thank you, Sahis, for enlightening us to a new view of how sordid the state of the modern NHL is.
And to think! Had Thornton not been headbutted in the shoulder, we would have been ignorant still! |
| Guest8411 |
Posted - 11/08/2010 : 21:07:09
Hey Beans, why don't we stick to hockey talk. What are you going on about culture change. Lack of knowledge if you ask me!!!!!!
GO SENS GO!!!!!!!! |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 11/08/2010 : 20:09:25
I wasn't gonna post, honest. 
I thought, why can't Stevie Wonder and Helen Keller give us their thoughts on video review? Why not? How disdainful of us to not let them argue their points.
I believe there are a plethora of these types of problems in the game, like you stated Nuxfan, stick-biting should indeed be a penalty, as well as stick-kicking, after all these are pros, they never 'trip', geez!
|
| nuxfan |
Posted - 11/08/2010 : 19:53:28
Ha, I figured you'd chime in eventually Elvis 
MALICIOUS BLINDSIDING! A suspension for headbutting the shoulder, I love it! Listen up Bettman, its on the agenda for the GM's meetings.
Right up there with biting the shaft of the stick... that stick did not ask for teeth to be embedded in it... |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 11/08/2010 : 19:39:13
Finally!!! I've been itching to jump on the soapbox and start the crusade, and I am just glad that someone else had the guts to do it first.
I don't know about any of you other hockey fans out there, but I am sick and tired of seeing these plays over and over. It's a wonder someone hasn't shattered a shoulder already with all these players so blatantly, illegally headbutting the shoulders of other players.
It's such a dangerous play, I mean who's expecting to be headbutted in the shoulder? Talk about malicious blindsiding!
Personally I'm glad they gave player like Savard and Boothe indefinite suspensions, this really has to stop!!
 ............ |
| bananas |
Posted - 11/08/2010 : 17:55:30
Peron should get his head up. Then maybe he wouldn't skate face first into Thornton's shoulder. All Thornton did was get in front of the guy who had the puck and lower his shoulder. While he did hit him in the head and should have gotten a penalty I don't think he should have been suspended. |
| Guest4412 |
Posted - 11/08/2010 : 17:19:31
Oh, and also, if it is Perron's responibilty to get out of the way of Joe's shoulder towards his head, then if we follow this tangent, high sticking should not be a penalty. People who high stick (almost) never mean to do it, so they should not be penalized, right? |
| Guest4412 |
Posted - 11/08/2010 : 17:16:38
I'm just gonna beat this dead horse a little more.
Sahis is saying that he throws his head back, thus making it not possible for it to be a head shot, and teaches us a little physics. Let's continue that lessson just a bit. Newton says that a Force acting upon an object will cause it to accelerate. Same thing works with someone's head getting shouldered. A force (Joe's Shoulder), acts upon an object (Perron's head), causing it to accelerate (his head getting thrown back). |
| Guest4050 |
Posted - 11/08/2010 : 13:50:35
Can we all just agree that sahis has never played hockey in his or her life or is simply ignorant to facing reality. Come on how can you say a player skates down the ice and throws their head back all the while trying to recieve a pass. You kind of need to see the puck to recieve a pass your comment is simply obsurd. Also, with the momentum perron was carrying up the ice and the fact thorton was not moving if thorton was not preparing himself for a hit then he would of fell on his A** (go check your physics book out if you need a breakdown on momentum or force)
[Moderator Edit- No need for a personal attack]
You are entitled to your opinion but thats all you have is an opinion. You have contridicted your self on several occasions and i am sure every is tired of telling you to s*** up |
| n/a |
Posted - 11/08/2010 : 07:34:22
Whoever said that this headshot was not suspendable is bananas.
Actually, it really was bananas who said that. 
I'm here all week folks!
And btw, just to clarify Sahis position . . . he did admit to it being a headshot finally. That's some fine work there, pickuphockey team members!
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| bananas |
Posted - 11/07/2010 : 22:31:41
I would have said not suspendable.
I can't believe anyone is arguing that he didn't hit him in the head though. That's ridiculous. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 11/07/2010 : 22:21:01
quote:
Originally posted by polishexpress
@Sahis, what happened to that poll you started up?
I saw it on for an hour or so, went out for the evening, came back, and it was gone! Who deleted it, you or a mod? I'm assuming its deleted, cause I can't find it!
(BTW for anyone else who didn't notice the poll, Sahis had put up a poll asking whether the Thornton hit was suspendable, with three options Yes,No,Maybe, and now its seems to be gone)
Lemme guess...... 99% + were saying "yes"? |
| polishexpress |
Posted - 11/07/2010 : 22:16:25
@Sahis, what happened to that poll you started up?
I saw it on for an hour or so, went out for the evening, came back, and it was gone! Who deleted it, you or a mod? I'm assuming its deleted, cause I can't find it!
(BTW for anyone else who didn't notice the poll, Sahis had put up a poll asking whether the Thornton hit was suspendable, with three options Yes,No,Maybe, and now its seems to be gone) |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 11/07/2010 : 22:01:12
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
This is quite some shoulder that Thornton is wielding... this sequence and trajectory makes the Kennedy bullet seem positively straight. It is bordering on ridiculous.
One of the funniest comments ever!! Too funny!!!
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
It's not bordering on ridiculous, it is ridiculous. Completely.
One of the most accurate comments ever!
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Give your neck a shake!
Another beauty!
quote:
Originally posted by sahis34
OK, simple thing... Thornton is taller, it's shoulder on shoulder in the sense that it's the bottom of his shoulder to the top of perrons which is next to the collar bone, There is minimal force to jaw/ear
because perron throws his head back.
"Perron throws his head back??? WTF? That settles it, if his head isn't "thrown back" due to the shoulder from Thornton, then we most certainly are watching different vids!
BTW, i too have Thornton in one of my pools, for whatever that's worth?
quote:
Originally posted by sahis34
Pause at 55 seconds, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJr33aaE_MM
Is Thornton looking at perron? Can he be faulted when he can't see him, For F--k sakes.
Crazy, just when i thought you really hadn't even seen the hit, you go and provide a link to it WITH a time to check a certain part out! Wow, i'm shocked. Anyway, are you trying to imply that Thornton didn't see Perron? Please tell me you're not?  If he didn't see him, he's either blind or left the box with his eyes closed and decided to see if he could return to the bench without looking?
quote:
Originally posted by sahis34
This wasn't as much of a headshot as the 2 game hjalmarsson one. 10% of the hit was on the head, and none of it was on the skull which is the dangerous part. If this is 2 games, the hjalmarson one is 15 games and the richards on booth and the cooke on savard hits are both 50 games.
Well, now you're finally admitting that it was a headshot, BUT, just 10%? What are you, a doctor? "The skull is the dangerous part"? Go back and read the comments from Slozo regarding boxers! A concussion's a concussion, i don't care if it's a result of a hit on the jaw or on the top of a guys head!!!
Anyway, i have to say, i'm impressed that you feel it's at least partially a headshot and that you're making an attempt to go back to what i think your original post was about (even though it's changed titles) and are comparing the hit to others. Thank you for that if nothing else!
Oh wait, now i read more and you're still not giving it up.....
quote:
Originally posted by sahis34
Thornton wasn't looking at perron at the time of the hit, I'm guessing he knew he was coming, but he didn't know he was going to turn away. The responsibility has to be on perron on this one
OMG.....dude, get your neck outta yer @*#! (sorry Beans, kinda stole that from your witty humour earlier)
What is this "turning away" you speak of? You mean, Perron looking back to receive a pass? Just read the freakin' rule!!! You cannot read the rule, understand it and still think this could possibly be Perron's fault!!! FTR, i don't think it was malicious in a way that Thornton intended it to be a headshot, unfortunately for him, that's how it turned out!!! If you really think it's a height issue, then guys like Joe will have to learn to check differently. Why? Because that's the way the NHL is going to have it!!!!
This next one could be your best yet!!!.......
quote:
Originally posted by sahis34
May I remind you that Tavares got concussed from his neck snapping, so that what might be keeping perron out of the lineup right now, not that a direct blow to his head concussed him
I'm pretty sure that Tavares couldn't have sufferred a concussion from his "neck snapping". Why, you ask? Well because just yesterday when discussing the Thornton hit, you stated that:
quote:
Originally posted by sahis34
A hit to the jaw wouldn't displace, or rattle your brain, unless is was hard enough to shatter your teeth, he really gets 10x more neck than jaw though so there's no way he'd be concussed.
You've contradicted yourself, you've changed your opinions, you've simply, as Beans stated, argued for the sake of arguing. It's been entertaining to a point, but it's getting to that frustrating level for most i believe. Let's just move on, no?
|
| sahis34 |
Posted - 11/07/2010 : 14:49:01
under the new rules, how many games(if any) should each of these "headshots" received( in your opinion)
1.Hjalmarrson on Pomminville
2.Thornton on Perron
3.Doan on Sexton
4.Cooke on Savard
5.Richards on Booth
6.Mitchel on Toews
7. Foligno on Dwyer( I don't see contact with the head)
I would say:
1. 4
2. 0
3. 3
4. 20
5.15
6. 0
7. 0
May I remind you that Tavares got concussed from his neck snapping, so that what might be keeping perron out of the lineup right now, not that a direct blow to his head concussed him
Go OILERS Go!!! |
| sahis34 |
Posted - 11/07/2010 : 14:41:30
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Firstly, Sahis, change the title of the thread does not change anyone opinion nor does it make any sense. I changed it back to something more reasonable for guests and members to understand.
Secondly, you are a very small minority of one person who believes this was not a head shot. You can continue to argue your same points and people will still not believe you. I see what I see on the video, which is Thornton's shoulder striking Perron's head. You see something else. Can we not agree to disagree already??
And now to bring up Thorton didn't see Perron?? Seriously, stop already. If Thorton did not see Perron, not only would he have NOT raised his shoulder preparing for the hit but he would have also been layed out in my opinion. Every time you post something the story changes a little bit. It's really tiresome and really is rediculous. Just because you say something like 'unarguably' does not make you any more right in my books.
As for the height issue, there is some validity to that. Let's take a quick look back at players who have been or could have been suspended under the new rule in the past season or so. Specifically the hits covered by a lot of media coverage(I'm sure I missed some).
M. Richards(5-11) on D. Booth(6-0)
M .Cooke(5-11) on M. Savard(5-10)
N. Hjarmlsson(6-3) on J. Pominville(6-0)
J. Thornton(6-4) on D. Perron(6-0)
E. Jovanovski(6-2) on A. Ebbett(5-9)
The height is not an issue. There are multiple players on the tall side that are not anywhere on this list. More often than not, height is not the issue.
However, of any argument you have stated to this point, it is the most plausible. However, it still does not change Thornton coming out of the penalty box when Perron was looking behind him nor does it change Perron's North/South travel and Thornton's contact going East/West, does it??
Finally, it does not change something that you have yet to address. Bottom line, the NHL's rule changes culture. The responsibility is on the hitter, not the player being hit. It is no longer Perron's responsibility to keep his head up. It is Thornton's responsibility to not hit Perron like this.
Like it or not, disagre or not, that is the rule as it is currently defined.
Thornton wasn't looking at perron at the time of the hit, I'm guessing he knew he was coming, but he didn't know he was going to turn away. The responsibility has to be on perron on this one
Go OILERS Go!!! |
| bananas |
Posted - 11/07/2010 : 14:41:20
The way I see it, Thornton definitely hits Peron's head with his shoulder. I can't really see how anyone can deny that, it's pretty clear in the video.
But I disagree that this hit deserves a suspension. I don't think it was a predatory hit in the same sense that Richards' hit on Booth was or Cooke's hit on Savard was. Thornton takes two strides over and try's to stop the guy with the puck. He just kind of gets in his way and lowers his shoulder. He for sure hit his head but he wasn't skating at full speed or targeting a guy in a vulnerable position or leave his feet. It was a hockey play in the sense that he was throwing a body check for a purpose (stopping the guy with the puck) other than to just hurt the opposing player. On the Richards and Cooke hits the player had already released the puck and the only purpose of the hit was to hurt the opponent.
The rule says that the head cannot be the initial point of contact and it definitely was so there has to be a penalty called. The rule doesn’t say that there has to be a suspension, just that the hit should be reviewed. Because it was part of a hockey play, and wasn’t particularly malicious, I don’t think he should have gotten a suspension.
|
| sahis34 |
Posted - 11/07/2010 : 14:30:07
Also look under the tsn comments, more people think it's not a suspension then who do
Go OILERS Go!!! |
| sahis34 |
Posted - 11/07/2010 : 14:29:09
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Firstly, Sahis, change the title of the thread does not change anyone opinion nor does it make any sense. I changed it back to something more reasonable for guests and members to understand.
Secondly, you are a very small minority of one person who believes this was not a head shot. You can continue to argue your same points and people will still not believe you. I see what I see on the video, which is Thornton's shoulder striking Perron's head. You see something else. Can we not agree to disagree already??
And now to bring up Thorton didn't see Perron?? Seriously, stop already. If Thorton did not see Perron, not only would he have NOT raised his shoulder preparing for the hit but he would have also been layed out in my opinion. Every time you post something the story changes a little bit. It's really tiresome and really is rediculous. Just because you say something like 'unarguably' does not make you any more right in my books.
As for the height issue, there is some validity to that. Let's take a quick look back at players who have been or could have been suspended under the new rule in the past season or so. Specifically the hits covered by a lot of media coverage(I'm sure I missed some).
M. Richards(5-11) on D. Booth(6-0)
M .Cooke(5-11) on M. Savard(5-10)
N. Hjarmlsson(6-3) on J. Pominville(6-0)
J. Thornton(6-4) on D. Perron(6-0)
E. Jovanovski(6-2) on A. Ebbett(5-9)
The height is not an issue. There are multiple players on the tall side that are not anywhere on this list. More often than not, height is not the issue.
However, of any argument you have stated to this point, it is the most plausible. However, it still does not change Thornton coming out of the penalty box when Perron was looking behind him nor does it change Perron's North/South travel and Thornton's contact going East/West, does it??
Finally, it does not change something that you have yet to address. Bottom line, the NHL's rule changes culture. The responsibility is on the hitter, not the player being hit. It is no longer Perron's responsibility to keep his head up. It is Thornton's responsibility to not hit Perron like this.
Like it or not, disagre or not, that is the rule as it is currently defined.
It's not a hit, it's a collision
Go OILERS Go!!! |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 11/07/2010 : 13:50:09
Firstly, Sahis, change the title of the thread does not change anyone opinion nor does it make any sense. I changed it back to something more reasonable for guests and members to understand.
Secondly, you are a very small minority of one person who believes this was not a head shot. You can continue to argue your same points and people will still not believe you. I see what I see on the video, which is Thornton's shoulder striking Perron's head. You see something else. Can we not agree to disagree already??
And now to bring up Thorton didn't see Perron?? Seriously, stop already. If Thorton did not see Perron, not only would he have NOT raised his shoulder preparing for the hit but he would have also been layed out in my opinion. Every time you post something the story changes a little bit. It's really tiresome and really is rediculous. Just because you say something like 'unarguably' does not make you any more right in my books.
As for the height issue, there is some validity to that. Let's take a quick look back at players who have been or could have been suspended under the new rule in the past season or so. Specifically the hits covered by a lot of media coverage(I'm sure I missed some).
M. Richards(5-11) on D. Booth(6-0)
M .Cooke(5-11) on M. Savard(5-10)
N. Hjarmlsson(6-3) on J. Pominville(6-0)
J. Thornton(6-4) on D. Perron(6-0)
E. Jovanovski(6-2) on A. Ebbett(5-9)
The height is not an issue. There are multiple players on the tall side that are not anywhere on this list. More often than not, height is not the issue.
However, of any argument you have stated to this point, it is the most plausible. However, it still does not change Thornton coming out of the penalty box when Perron was looking behind him nor does it change Perron's North/South travel and Thornton's contact going East/West, does it??
Finally, it does not change something that you have yet to address. Bottom line, the NHL's rule changes culture. The responsibility is on the hitter, not the player being hit. It is no longer Perron's responsibility to keep his head up. It is Thornton's responsibility to not hit Perron like this.
Like it or not, disagre or not, that is the rule as it is currently defined. |
| ToXXiK1 |
Posted - 11/07/2010 : 12:54:04
*Sigh* |
| sahis34 |
Posted - 11/07/2010 : 12:49:29
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
quote:
Do you think he hit his head?
100% absolutely. There original video that I posted and the video-of-many-angles that Beans posted show without a doubt that he hit the head. Whether it was the jaw, ear, side of head, or a combination of all 3, he hit his head with his shoulder.
This wasn't as much of a headshot as the 2 game hjalmarsson one. 10% of the hit was on the head, and none of it was on the skull which is the dangerous part. If this is 2 games, the hjalmarson one is 15 games and the richards on booth and the cooke on savard hits are both 50 games.
This year all three "headshot" suspensions; the offenders weren't looking at the victim. I'm curious to see how many games the next cooke type hit will get.
Go OILERS Go!!! |
| sahis34 |
Posted - 11/07/2010 : 12:29:53
Pause at 55 seconds, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJr33aaE_MM
Is Thornton looking at perron? Can he be faulted when he can't see him, For F--k sakes.
Go OILERS Go!!! |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 11/07/2010 : 12:21:47
quote:
Do you think he hit his head?
100% absolutely. There original video that I posted and the video-of-many-angles that Beans posted show without a doubt that he hit the head. Whether it was the jaw, ear, side of head, or a combination of all 3, he hit his head with his shoulder. |
| sahis34 |
Posted - 11/07/2010 : 12:17:45
Whatever, I don't care. This is not Thornton's fault, unarguably.
Go OILERS Go!!! |
| sahis34 |
Posted - 11/07/2010 : 12:06:29
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
sahis, I think you are now arguing for the sake of argument. I have seen you claim the following:
quote:
the shoulder was the initial point of contact
quote:
he hits his neck the hardest, but hits through his shoulder
quote:
perron throws his head back, it looks like he maybe hit him with his jaw
quote:
Watch it again, the principal point of contact is right in the neck
quote:
He hits him on the neck shoulder and barely his lower jaw
quote:
he really gets 10x more neck than jaw though so there's no way he'd be concussed
quote:
But the head wasn't the principal point of contact, it was the neck/collar bone
quote:
The hit was from the side, and his collarbone was hit a lot harder than his neck(which he hit from the side)
quote:
thornton tried to keep his shoulder down, in case you didn't notice, he's half a foot taller than perron, and made no contact with his helmet even though he scraped the tip of his ear
quote:
After looking at that video, he hits him right above the collar bone
So, if I read this correctly, Thornton did the following:
- initiated contact with his shoulder on Perron's shoulder, but is keeping his shoulder down so as not to hit the head.
- Thornton's shoulder then moved up dramatically, and then projected outwards to contact Perron's neck "from the side"
- the shoulder then moved straight down to impact the collarbone, "a lot harder than his neck"
- the shoulder then moved up and out again, to scrape the tip of the ear.
This is quite some shoulder that Thornton is wielding... this sequence and trajectory makes the Kennedy bullet seem positively straight. It is bordering on ridiculous.
OK, simple thing... Thornton is taller, it's shoulder on shoulder in the sense that it's the bottom of his shoulder to the top of perrons which is next to the collar bone, There is minimal force to jaw/ear
because perron throws his head back.
He hit the collarbone first with the bottom of the shoulder, then moved his shoulder down at an angle, hitting perrons neck.
The bottom line is we see different things in the video so there is no point arguing, also is seems clear that you don't realize that the neck is not head. Answer me this though: Do you think he hit his head?
Go OILERS Go!!! |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 11/07/2010 : 12:00:00
It's not bordering on ridiculous, it is ridiculous. Completely.
How many different ways does the video have to show Thornton's shoulder squarely contact Perron's head.
Even Thornton and his agent(being his brother) do not deny the headshot. Their argument is there is nothing Thornton could have done because of his size.
Quoted today in the Edmonton Sun on a statement released by Thornton's Camp, " When Joe asked the league directly, what he could have done differently, they could not clearly explain. I guess being 5-9 was Joe's only solution to avoid the suspension."
Another great discussion happened last night on the CBC hotstove where every person on the panel disagreed with the discipline, however they all agreed it was a headshot.
Frankly, I am done. I am not arguing if it was a head shot or not anymore. 99% of us see it for what it was. If anyone wants to argue the consistancy of the discipline the NHL has laid out, fine. But there is nothing anyone can tell me about this being a 'neck shot' and not a head shot.
Give your neck a shake!
|
| Guest2894 |
Posted - 11/07/2010 : 11:52:06
quote:
Originally posted by Pasty7
First off its a bad situation normallyy a d man will not give a forward a suicide past like that. (not the d man's fault Thornton stepped out of the box) Second was Thornton not infront of Perron at all times? It's not like he came swooping in from the outside like previous hit, Doan Richards Cook come to mind. Is it really a blindside? ssur Perron doesn't see him coming but he wasn't really looking either. The point i'm trying to make from what i can see Thornton isn't even really skateing that hard to Perron and Perron runs into him. I have a hard time calling this a dirty hit and have a hard time giving Thornton a suspension. If a player isn't looking to me its not really a blindside is it? Maybe i'm just nuts but Thornton was always infront of Perron, where is the blindside?
Pasty
I agree with you. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 11/07/2010 : 11:04:18
sahis, I think you are now arguing for the sake of argument. I have seen you claim the following:
quote:
the shoulder was the initial point of contact
quote:
he hits his neck the hardest, but hits through his shoulder
quote:
perron throws his head back, it looks like he maybe hit him with his jaw
quote:
Watch it again, the principal point of contact is right in the neck
quote:
He hits him on the neck shoulder and barely his lower jaw
quote:
he really gets 10x more neck than jaw though so there's no way he'd be concussed
quote:
But the head wasn't the principal point of contact, it was the neck/collar bone
quote:
The hit was from the side, and his collarbone was hit a lot harder than his neck(which he hit from the side)
quote:
thornton tried to keep his shoulder down, in case you didn't notice, he's half a foot taller than perron, and made no contact with his helmet even though he scraped the tip of his ear
quote:
After looking at that video, he hits him right above the collar bone
So, if I read this correctly, Thornton did the following:
- initiated contact with his shoulder on Perron's shoulder, but is keeping his shoulder down so as not to hit the head.
- Thornton's shoulder then moved up dramatically, and then projected outwards to contact Perron's neck "from the side"
- the shoulder then moved straight down to impact the collarbone, "a lot harder than his neck"
- the shoulder then moved up and out again, to scrape the tip of the ear.
This is quite some shoulder that Thornton is wielding... this sequence and trajectory makes the Kennedy bullet seem positively straight. It is bordering on ridiculous.
|
| sahis34 |
Posted - 11/07/2010 : 08:52:44
Furthermore the concept of the bindside is more the concept of players not having the ability to protect himself, Which I think perron did
Go OILERS Go!!! |
| polishexpress |
Posted - 11/07/2010 : 08:49:37
It's seems like everyone's points are falling on your deaf ears, sahis.
And, as others are mentioning, it comes down to respect.
Thornton didn't have enough respect for his opponent to throw a check or avoid contact in order to prevent potential serious injury to his opponent.(Everyone, even you Sahis, must agree that Perron just as easily could be lying in a hospital bed due to the blindside hit.)
I like what Beans mentioned, if the contact was so unavoidable, then why didn't Thornton throw a hipcheck? I think the hit would be on the highlight reels for a whole different reason then!
Anyway, I'm agreeing to disagree with you Sahis, on this one. |
| sahis34 |
Posted - 11/07/2010 : 08:43:00
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Ultimately, this thread has come down to two factors.
The first factor is that the vast majority of people can see this hit for exactly what it is. Blindside, lateral, headshot. I do not believe that a person can be hit in their neck by another person's shoulder. Regardless, the video shows 15 different ways that Thornton’s shoulder strikes Perron square in head. The color change on this jersey from teal to white is right on Perron’s left ear. If one can not see that, well there is nothing more to say on that topic.
However, I will provide yet another video that some will choose to not watch or watch and close their eyes when the hit actual happens or any other plethora of reasons why one can not see the hit for exactly what it is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m55RtBUyKcA
Actually, there is one more thing to say. Thornton has no where else to go?? Sure he did. He had the entire ice surface. Furthermore, if he could not 'avoid' the contact, he could have gone low, throwing a hip check rather than a head shot. Or, he could have not braced and lifted his shoulder, rather leaning slightly back and possibly landing on his junk himself but he would have played last night.
The remaining debatable point is Pasty's in that if Perron has his head up does the hit still fall under the rule and the answer is yes. Thornton was travelling east/west when Perron was travelling north/south hence the lateral part of the rule.
People need to accept the culture change the NHL is imposing by this rule in that the person laying the hit is the one solely responsible. Gone are the days where you can blame a player for getting hit when his head is down. The only way to hit a player today with their head down is from in front (either traveling north/south or east/west" and low. Anything else is the responsibility of the hitter.
This is the biggest difference. I don’t necessarily agree with this culture change but this is exactly what the NHL has done with this rule change.
thornton tried to keep his shoulder down, in case you didn't notice, he's half a foot taller than perron, and made no contact with his helmet even though he scraped the tip of his ear. The only thing he can do is dive, brace for the hit, or swerve around against his momentum all crash to the ice. To the point Thornton went as low he could go, and his intent was clealry to hit him in the shoulder.
After looking at that video, he hits him right above the collar bone, thats not the head
Also blame should be put on perron, if he turns away and forces thornton to came from the blind side.
A side note, I have perron and thornton in my hockey pool
Go OILERS Go!!! |
| sahis34 |
Posted - 11/07/2010 : 08:29:28
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
quote:
Originally posted by sahis34
FOR THE FINAL TIME,
IT'S NOT A HEADSHOT, thornton didn't make contact with perron's helmet
yes I suppose it was a blindside
Go OILERS Go!!!
Man oh man these forum rules and guidelines i agreed to upon membership really do interfere with what i wanna say at times!!!!
You seriously must be either watching a different hit or you haven't watched it period!
Pasty, i totally get your point and was wanting to ask the same question as to what would have happened if Perron had not been looking back for a pass and rather was looking forward and saw the hit? I'd agree, it's not Thornton's fault the guy was looking back for a pass!
I dunno, maybe the league needs to do something about guys returning to the ice. The Mitchell on Toews hit last year was very similar to this. That's two major hits, and i'm sure there's other with similarities, in less than two seasons. I guess it falls back to the respect that's always talked about between players?
BTW Pasty, hope the move is going or went well. I can't stand moving. Just went through the same last summer!
The mitchel on toews hit was an example of a CLEAN hit in the video on the headsot rule
Go OILERS Go!!! |
| sahis34 |
Posted - 11/07/2010 : 08:27:43
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
sahis, this is not charging. A quick definition of charging:
"Charging shall mean the actions of a player who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner."
Note the distance provision - charging is meant to penalize players that take a run at another player. Thornton took pretty much 2 steps, away from the play, and did not charge anyone.
Although not specified in the rules (at least that I could find), a "headshot" seems to be viewed as any hit above the shoulders. This would include the neck and head. Do you think that the neck should somehow be treated differently from the head? What if Thornton's shoulder had gone into Perron's throat and crushed his airtube or larynx?
The hit was from the side, and his collarbone was hit a lot harder than his neck(which he hit from the side), and if he didn't charge into, he just ran into him on him way to the bench
Go OILERS Go!!! |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 11/07/2010 : 07:16:09
Ultimately, this thread has come down to two factors.
The first factor is that the vast majority of people can see this hit for exactly what it is. Blindside, lateral, headshot. I do not believe that a person can be hit in their neck by another person's shoulder. Regardless, the video shows 15 different ways that Thornton’s shoulder strikes Perron square in head. The color change on this jersey from teal to white is right on Perron’s left ear. If one can not see that, well there is nothing more to say on that topic.
However, I will provide yet another video that some will choose to not watch or watch and close their eyes when the hit actual happens or any other plethora of reasons why one can not see the hit for exactly what it is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m55RtBUyKcA
Actually, there is one more thing to say. Thornton has no where else to go?? Sure he did. He had the entire ice surface. Furthermore, if he could not 'avoid' the contact, he could have gone low, throwing a hip check rather than a head shot. Or, he could have not braced and lifted his shoulder, rather leaning slightly back and possibly landing on his junk himself but he would have played last night.
The remaining debatable point is Pasty's in that if Perron has his head up does the hit still fall under the rule and the answer is yes. Thornton was travelling east/west when Perron was travelling north/south hence the lateral part of the rule.
People need to accept the culture change the NHL is imposing by this rule in that the person laying the hit is the one solely responsible. Gone are the days where you can blame a player for getting hit when his head is down. The only way to hit a player today with their head down is from in front (either traveling north/south or east/west" and low. Anything else is the responsibility of the hitter.
This is the biggest difference. I don’t necessarily agree with this culture change but this is exactly what the NHL has done with this rule change.
|
| Alex116 |
Posted - 11/06/2010 : 23:54:19
quote:
Originally posted by sahis34
FOR THE FINAL TIME,
IT'S NOT A HEADSHOT, thornton didn't make contact with perron's helmet
yes I suppose it was a blindside
Go OILERS Go!!!
Man oh man these forum rules and guidelines i agreed to upon membership really do interfere with what i wanna say at times!!!!
You seriously must be either watching a different hit or you haven't watched it period!
Pasty, i totally get your point and was wanting to ask the same question as to what would have happened if Perron had not been looking back for a pass and rather was looking forward and saw the hit? I'd agree, it's not Thornton's fault the guy was looking back for a pass!
I dunno, maybe the league needs to do something about guys returning to the ice. The Mitchell on Toews hit last year was very similar to this. That's two major hits, and i'm sure there's other with similarities, in less than two seasons. I guess it falls back to the respect that's always talked about between players?
BTW Pasty, hope the move is going or went well. I can't stand moving. Just went through the same last summer! |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 11/06/2010 : 22:22:08
sahis, this is not charging. A quick definition of charging:
"Charging shall mean the actions of a player who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner."
Note the distance provision - charging is meant to penalize players that take a run at another player. Thornton took pretty much 2 steps, away from the play, and did not charge anyone.
Although not specified in the rules (at least that I could find), a "headshot" seems to be viewed as any hit above the shoulders. This would include the neck and head. Do you think that the neck should somehow be treated differently from the head? What if Thornton's shoulder had gone into Perron's throat and crushed his airtube or larynx? |
| sahis34 |
Posted - 11/06/2010 : 21:37:37
The neck is not the head, therefore it is not a headshot. The NHL has not stated that a headshot includes the neck, how can they overlook this rule, when they couldn't suspend cooke last year due to a lack of rules.
If this is a penalty it's charging.
Go OILERS Go!!! |
| Pasty7 |
Posted - 11/06/2010 : 21:13:17
quote:
Originally posted by polishexpress
You know what Sahis, and please don't take this as a personal attack, but reading this thread, it seems you ignoring facts.
Firstly, and this is your quote: quote:
48.1 Illegal Check to the Head – A lateral or blind side hit to an opponent where the head is targeted and/or the principle point of contact is not permitted.
If according to you, Thornton hit Perron's neck, then that is definitely a point of contact that is not allowed(unless you say checks to the neck are a legal point of contact?), therefore can be ruled as an Illegal Check to the Head. Plain and simple. Not acknowledging that the point of contact is the neck, and thus illegal, is paramount to ignorance of the wording of the rule.
Secondly, why are you defending Thornton?(I assume you are doing so in defending his hit as not a headshot) I couldn't care less about hockey "culture" in regards to suicide passes, but are you so callous that you think that it's Perron's fault: he should have not taken the pass, or should have seen Thornton coming?
Beans quoted the rule where it said a "blindside" hit to a "illegal point of contact." Looking at the video, there is no way Thornton could have hit him legally, as he was going E/W, while Perron was going N/S with his back facing Thornton. If Thornton hadn't hit Perron's neck, it would have been his head, or right in the back(also penalties as points of contact are illegal, and from the blindside).
Either way you look at, it, it was a HEADSHOT by the league's definition, not our definition of a head shot, which would be where the head is the one and only principal point of contact.
his Back is not facing Thornton infact his entire body is facing Thornton only his head is turned away from Thornton... the rest i can agree with but in no way is his back facing Thornton unless he is skateing backwards up ice
Pasty |
| polishexpress |
Posted - 11/06/2010 : 19:55:56
You know what Sahis, and please don't take this as a personal attack, but reading this thread, it seems you ignoring facts.
Firstly, and this is your quote: quote:
48.1 Illegal Check to the Head – A lateral or blind side hit to an opponent where the head is targeted and/or the principle point of contact is not permitted.
If according to you, Thornton hit Perron's neck, then that is definitely a point of contact that is not allowed(unless you say checks to the neck are a legal point of contact?), therefore can be ruled as an Illegal Check to the Head. Plain and simple. Not acknowledging that the point of contact is the neck, and thus illegal, is paramount to ignorance of the wording of the rule.
Secondly, why are you defending Thornton?(I assume you are doing so in defending his hit as not a headshot) I couldn't care less about hockey "culture" in regards to suicide passes, but are you so callous that you think that it's Perron's fault: he should have not taken the pass, or should have seen Thornton coming?
Beans quoted the rule where it said a "blindside" hit to a "illegal point of contact." Looking at the video, there is no way Thornton could have hit him legally, as he was going E/W, while Perron was going N/S with his back facing Thornton. If Thornton hadn't hit Perron's neck, it would have been his head, or right in the back(also penalties as points of contact are illegal, and from the blindside).
Either way you look at, it, it was a HEADSHOT by the league's definition, not our definition of a head shot, which would be where the head is the one and only principal point of contact.
|
|
|
