| Author |
 Topic  |
|
ReyR
Top Prospect
13 Posts |
 Posted - 04/01/2010 : 10:12:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I still don't believe that Morris did turn his back. Stop the clock at :54 and tell me that Kesler does not already have contact with Morris and then click play and stop as fast as you can. You will clearly see that Kesler makes initial contact on the side or Morris under his left arm. Kesler then extends his right arm through the check which is what makes Morris kiss the glass.
Don't listen to the play by play, watch it with your eyes.
One more thing:
The onus is on the player (or goalkeeper) applying the check to ensure his opponent is not in a vulnerable position and if so, he must avoid the contact.
It is not Morris's responsibility to avoid the check, it was Kesler's as he was the player applying the check.
Severity dictated (according to the officials) that is was 5 and a game. I would rather see the refs err on the side of caution and lay the 5 and a game then not lay anything or 2 and watch the Coyotes head hunt for the rest of the game.
Still dead right call. This was not a straight up hockey hit. By definition of the rule, it was boarding.
That part is pretty clear.
Now, I think the punishment does fit the crime. 5 and a game and nothing more. Suspensions are for players that intend to injure. I do believe that this was simply an over agressive play by an agressive player on a forecheck.
Beans - I just gotta say that you should have included both sentences in your response. Why did you only focus on that one sentence from the rules and place full blame on the hitter? When the next sentence clearly states that the player being hit also has to avoid placing themselves in a vulnerable position?
The entire debate is in regards to who is ultimately responsible . You made some good points, but it weakens your points if it looks like you didn't take into account the rest of the rule that is relevant. |
 |
|
|
tbar
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
376 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2010 : 12:29:06
|
Alex - A linesman can call any penalty resulting in 4 minutes or more.
I still think this is a good hit. But I am ok with the call as well.
As a ref I would be calling a 2 or 5 and a game ejection here in a Minor Hockey game. (I don’t know if the ref's in the NHL can eject a player while only calling a 2 minute minor). For me it’s a 2 minute due to Morris not appearing to be injured at the time of the hit.
To me the hit is NOT meant to hurt Morris. It is a good solid finished check. IMO Morris tried to reverse the puck and gave his numbers to Kessler and you see the end result.
I too am a firm believer that the player getting hit is just as responsible as the player throwing the hit. If I am coming to hit you DO NOT TURN AROUND.
Beans.......seriously Morris 100% had to know he was about to get hit he looked right at him.
One last thing as a player I will never skate 2 and a half feet away from the boards. I will skate right close to them so if I do get hit I don’t get my head violently thrown against the boards. This should be common sense for all players and something I teach the kids I coach. (this isn’t really relevant in this hit but it is relevant to the boarding penalty).
|
Edited by - tbar on 04/01/2010 12:31:29 |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2010 : 13:18:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
----------
I understand where you're coming from and i agree with the fact that "driving the guy through the boards" isn't necessary. What we're seeing (IMO) though is guys progressively getting bigger and faster over the years and therefore either having the speed or size to increase the results of checks. Let's face it, what're Keslers options here:
a. Hit him hard as he can and hope to steal the puck and have Morris on his butt. This allows a free attempt towards goal.
b. Bump him, maybe enabling him to steal the puck and kill more of the penalty
c. Bump him and allow him to clear the puck up the boards or back around the net to a teammate
d. abort, try to stick check and return to a defensive postion to continue the PK.
---------
Alex,
'd' would be a terrible option, the hit is there, along with the oppurtunity to dislodge the puck, and as you say, create a potential scoring chance. 'D' is not a valid option in the heat of the moment. I mean that, no sarcasm.
What I would like to see players do in this case is a modified version of 'a'. the only difference being the first part, hit him as hard as he can. that is my only point of contention with these plays. There are many ways of accomplishing the same goal, without this result. Had Kesler taken more of the body and done more a rub out, as opposed to the pasting(looking for proper descriptions here, and not having much luck), the result could easily have been the same, Morris out of the play, Kesler with the puck, nobody's forehead tatoo'ed to that glass panels, all is good. Great, safe hockey play, that at the very least, disrupts Morris' breakout.
If the player is not near the boards, or along the boards and facing you, not sideways, where he can turn away, but facing you,
by all means, I support option 'a' 100%.
Hit him hard and make him forget about the puck and worry about you, that is the logic for a bonecrushing check.
I don't know, these are all just my opinions, and as we saw, the refs called it. Some agree with the call, even if they thought the hit was okay, to me, that's the start. It'll make these debates less frequent, but the beauty is there are always things to debate.
|
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2010 : 15:25:02
|
F_E....
I agree with your "modified" version of "a". Only prob here is, i believe that's what he was doing. I know where you're going with this, but to physically take Morris completely out of the play is hitting him hard but clean, arguably as hard as possible within the boundaries of the rules. Can't recall what side of the fence you're on (too lazy to scroll back to the other page) as to whether or not Morris turned towards the glass, but imo, he did. If he didn't, the hit would have been 1000% (not a typo ) clean and hard and would have likely resulted in Morris on his butt, unhurt but shaken, and an offensive zone takeaway and possible shorthanded chance for Kesler and the Canucks.
I hope no one takes my opinion the wrong way. I'm not in any way saying it's Morris's fault entirely, it's just that had he continued up the ice, he would have been hit directly shoulder to shoulder.
I think those okay with the call, at least those in support of Kesler (be it Canuck fans or others), are the ones who realize it didn't really end up affecting the game. BUT, if Phoenix had gone on to score 2 or 3 on the 5 min major, opinions may just be different?
Either way, i too enjoy the debate and i apologize for being so stubborn with my views but that's just me i suppose. I think Morris knew he was coming, some, Beans for instance, don't think so. Tough to prove opinions once again!  |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2010 : 15:43:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by ReyR
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I still don't believe that Morris did turn his back. Stop the clock at :54 and tell me that Kesler does not already have contact with Morris and then click play and stop as fast as you can. You will clearly see that Kesler makes initial contact on the side or Morris under his left arm. Kesler then extends his right arm through the check which is what makes Morris kiss the glass.
Don't listen to the play by play, watch it with your eyes.
One more thing:
The onus is on the player (or goalkeeper) applying the check to ensure his opponent is not in a vulnerable position and if so, he must avoid the contact.
It is not Morris's responsibility to avoid the check, it was Kesler's as he was the player applying the check.
Severity dictated (according to the officials) that is was 5 and a game. I would rather see the refs err on the side of caution and lay the 5 and a game then not lay anything or 2 and watch the Coyotes head hunt for the rest of the game.
Still dead right call. This was not a straight up hockey hit. By definition of the rule, it was boarding.
That part is pretty clear.
Now, I think the punishment does fit the crime. 5 and a game and nothing more. Suspensions are for players that intend to injure. I do believe that this was simply an over agressive play by an agressive player on a forecheck.
Beans - I just gotta say that you should have included both sentences in your response. Why did you only focus on that one sentence from the rules and place full blame on the hitter? When the next sentence clearly states that the player being hit also has to avoid placing themselves in a vulnerable position?
The entire debate is in regards to who is ultimately responsible . You made some good points, but it weakens your points if it looks like you didn't take into account the rest of the rule that is relevant.
It doesn't weaken my argument because my entire argument is that the 2nd part (about the player getting hit turning his back) is irrelevant. Morris did not turn his back. As I have stated 3 times now, stop the video at the :54-:55 second mark and notice that Kesler hits Morris from the side, directly under Morris's left arm.
Morris's turn is from the hit Kesler laid. He did not turn therefore takes zero responsibility. Kesler's assumes 100% of the responsibility which is why I only included that part of the rule. |
|
|
|
Guest9282
( )
|
Posted - 04/01/2010 : 16:20:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
F_E....
I agree with your "modified" version of "a". Only prob here is, i believe that's what he was doing. I know where you're going with this, but to physically take Morris completely out of the play is hitting him hard but clean, arguably as hard as possible within the boundaries of the rules......
And I would agree with you....except, he got a 5 minute major and game misconduct, not sure how you argue it's any fault of Morris' with that call in mind. The call was made, and supported by the league I am assuming. Kinda sums it for me.
For the record, I had no opinion(key word), as to whether or not Morris turned, nothing conclusive from the the clips, and again, I defer to the officials who not only had a better oppurtunity to confer and review, but are also paid to do these sorts of things. They called it as they did, all Kesler, and I have no argument for them.
PS. Don't think of yourself in terms of stubborn, only strong of conviction.....homer!
(please realize I kid, unlike some of the more sensitive out there). |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2010 : 17:34:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by tbar
I too am a firm believer that the player getting hit is just as responsible as the player throwing the hit. If I am coming to hit you DO NOT TURN AROUND.
Beans.......seriously Morris 100% had to know he was about to get hit he looked right at him.
What you or I firmly believe is completely irrelevant. Even if Kesler phoned Morris ahead of time and told him he was going to get hit, it doesn't matter.
The rules clearly states the onus is on the players applying the hit to ensure the player getting hit is not in a vulnerable position. The only time this does not apply is when the player getting hit turns. Based on what I watched on the link, Morris did not turn but was turned by the hit.
Kesler's 100% responsible and the refs nailed the call.
Can we move on soon?? I'm getting a little sick of arguing hits every other day. |
Edited by - Beans15 on 04/01/2010 21:39:17 |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2010 : 21:22:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest9282
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
F_E....
I agree with your "modified" version of "a". Only prob here is, i believe that's what he was doing. I know where you're going with this, but to physically take Morris completely out of the play is hitting him hard but clean, arguably as hard as possible within the boundaries of the rules......
And I would agree with you....except, he got a 5 minute major and game misconduct, not sure how you argue it's any fault of Morris' with that call in mind. The call was made, and supported by the league I am assuming. Kinda sums it for me.
For the record, I had no opinion(key word), as to whether or not Morris turned, nothing conclusive from the the clips, and again, I defer to the officials who not only had a better oppurtunity to confer and review, but are also paid to do these sorts of things. They called it as they did, all Kesler, and I have no argument for them.
PS. Don't think of yourself in terms of stubborn, only strong of conviction.....homer!
(please realize I kid, unlike some of the more sensitive out there).
Sorry Alex....the above was me...thought I was signed in. My apologies, I certainly wouldn't want you to think it's some faceless guest calling you a homer! |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2010 : 01:02:55
|
F_E, thanks for the clarification it was you and not a "faceless guest", man i hate those!!!
Here's my rebuttal, whether you want it or not !
quote:
Fat_Elvis]And I would agree with you....except, he got a 5 minute major and game misconduct, not sure how you argue it's any fault of Morris' with that call in mind. The call was made, and supported by the league I am assuming. Kinda sums it for me.
I think you completely missed my point! Firstly, i didn't agree with the call, that's my whole point! I think Morris is partially to balme. 5 and a game seems pretty harsh to me. Secondly, how did the league support this call exactly? By not reprimanding the ref? They certainly didn't add any suspension to it which i think we all know would have happened if they felt they could have? At this point, ANYTHING the league can do that they feel is fair punishment as far as suspensions go they WILL do! They did nothing! Kesler played tonight (sort of, kinda like the rest of the Canucks ).
quote:
Fat_ElvisFor the record, I had no opinion(key word), as to whether or not Morris turned, nothing conclusive from the the clips, and again, I defer to the officials who not only had a better oppurtunity to confer and review, but are also paid to do these sorts of things. They called it as they did, all Kesler, and I have no argument for them.
You serious? You have to have an opinion, no? Beans and i do! Deferring to the officials is okay in most cases but when you say they had a "better opportunity to confer and review", did they really? Yes, they conferred. Both refs, who were planning on making no call, conferred with the linesmen, or at least one of them, and decided to make a call. There was no "review" and when i talk of a review i mean video. If you mean a run down of what the linesman saw, who for the record was further from the incident than the ref, then i guess i can't argue that. This is one of my problems with this, the ref was 10 feet away, standing directly on the face off dot looking directly at the hit! No one had a better view yet a linesman convinces him it was a major and game misconduct? And you're simply willing to "defer to the refs"?
Lemme qualify something before i go on. I will admit that i am very passionate about this incident because the Canucks are involved, but before you or anyone else calls me a homer or claims i'm biased, look back to the Liambas / Fanelli thread from last fall and you'll soon realize i will defend my point of view regardless of whether or not a team i support is involved!!!
BTW, i really wish that you, me and Beans could sit down at a pub and hash this out over beers, i'd even buy! Of course, then i'd have to invite Slozo, cuz he's on my side on this particular hit! Then again, i do that and he will prob require Beans to wear some Leafs gear in lieu of the Leafs logo he's gonna have to sport on here and then things could get ugly! |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2010 : 13:37:56
|
I don't know Alex, you and I were in agreement for most of the debate regarding the Liambas hit, I went and looked just to see...
The only difference this time around is our disagreement regarding whether or not Morris turned away from the hit, and whether a penalty should have been assessed at all.
I think what gets me ranting about these hit topics, is the increasing frequency with which they are happening. It's almost daily now, I sit down to watch TSN Sportscentre, and see some player getting pasted with ugly hits....I must be getting soft in my old age.
In regards back to this hit, I was just glad there was a call made.
On that we most certainly can agree to disagree, but I like the idea of players being put on notice that these types of hits are being scrutinized, we may get to that modified version of option 'a' mentioned earlier, yet.
|
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2010 : 14:37:16
|
F_E, my reference to the Liambas his wasn't to do with us agreeing or disagreeing, it was meant to show that my stubborness and insistence at my point of view is not just "homer" based. I don't even follow the OHL and yet i debated/argued my (or our) views on that for days!
Back to the Kesler incident, i'd be okay in a case like that if it were a 2min minor. You see, imo, there should be some blame put on Morris so maybe if 2 mins is all he got, guys would think twice about risking serious injury to draw a penalty. Now, don't get me wrong, i don't think that was Morris' intention on this play but i do see a lot of guys turn to face the glass and get nailed. I do agree that maybe the "hitter", in this case Kesler, needs to be more careful about the speed they carry into a hit. It's such a fine line on a hit like this!!! Maybe a 5 min major (no game misconduct) and 2 to Morris? I dunno, i'm grasping now
What i don't like, and i'm sure everyone is on board with this, is the inconsistency in calls! Not sure if you saw the hit Tanner Glass (Canucks) put on Jeff Halpern last night? FAR worse than the Kesler hit and he only got 2? It's gotta be real frustrating for players to determine what they can and can't do?
Have a look at this one, and although if you watch it closely you'll notice Halpern lowers his upper body on the follow through from making the play. Now, i'm not saying he did it intentionally (it was a natural move for the play he made) but it put him in a more dangerous position regardless. Either way, i will agree with what i'm sure your opinion will be, that Glass is carrying far too much and makes this a very dangerous play! It's getting to the point where the "hitter" is gonna have to be very careful when throwing checks like these to ensure the guy he's hitting is not in a dangerous position. Fortunately, Halpern wasn't seriously injured although he did leave the game (not immediately as far as i recall) and didn't return? Haven't heard if he was injured further but from the looks of the hit, it could have been FAR worse!
Here's the response from Glass in an interview following the game.
"I thought it was a clean hit," Glass said.
"I was coming in on the forecheck, he knew I was there. He exposed the puck and I finished the check. The explanation I got was that I have to let up on that."I don't agree with them but that's how it goes."
NOTE the part i bolded . I think that's what it's getting to and maybe it'll take some for both players and fans to accept it but it's looking more and more like it's necessary.
BTW, here's the hit.........
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av42G8-21gM |
|
|
|
Guest7219
( )
|
Posted - 04/02/2010 : 15:16:32
|
The difference between the two hits to me is that Glass was looking at a player who was, from the moment he saw him, getting into a vulnerable position, heading towards the boards. He had to hope for Halpern to turn INTO a non vulnerable position, where the hit will still be pretty violent, though not as much as violent as Kelser's was. Kesler had better intentions and got bad luck, just like Glass in a way, as both hitees did not get into a good position and part of the blame does end up on them. If hits like this keep happening and nothing is done to solve them, as in, 2 minute boarding calls and no responsibility being enforced on the players, then we will have many more Patrick O'Sullivan type players who are absolutely afraid to touch the puck and will give up on plays if they have a chance to get hit. It's another side effect of not making a change, I just thought I'd throw it out there.
Guest9165 |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2010 : 12:48:13
|
I am at a loss of what to say regarding this hit.
I agree that there is serious inconsistency in the calls, as I think this should have been a 5 and a game as well.
I don't think I can even begin to give my side, if there is one, as this is another example of a reckless, play, with the hitter calling it a strong forecheck...yada yada yada.
I give up. Those who enjoy this physical type of play, and see nothing wrong with it, enjoy. I'm done with trying to rationalize the need for it and can only watch and get enjoyment from the other parts of the sport.
As much as I enjoy debating the perceptions of these kinds of plays, I am finding it too much too keep up with, these are happening daily now, and as Alex mentioned, there is very little in the way of control or consistency being dispensed in the policing of it.
Play on boys, good luck selling the game, if this all the casual fan is seeing, based on media coverage. |
|
|
|
Guest0965
( )
|
Posted - 04/05/2010 : 03:42:42
|
Morris saw it coming.
Morris is a veteran player.
I honestly would've ducked and threw Kesler over, Step out of the way or faced him.
Kesler being ejected infuriated me. Maybe i can see how the refs called it a boarding call. but still...ejected. lame lamee excuse refs. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2010 : 05:01:54
|
Q to Fat Elvis:
If Morris' elbow had successfully connected to Kesler's head as he came in to check him, and if Kesler had been the one who was injured, what would be your call - and more importantly, what do you think the call of the ref would have been?
And please don't try to duck this, as this is not some crazy scenario I am trying to trip you up on - this is a legitimate potential occurrence, and I've seen it happen many times, in just such cases as the one that is under discussion here. No ifs and buts here . . . it was totally possible that Kesler could have gotten that elbow in the head.
Like Alex, I was in total agreement with you on the Liambas hit, in fact I was one of the most loud and forceful guys on your side there . . . but this hit is pretty borderline in my opinion, and the fact that Morris tries a vicious elbow on the incoming checker muddies the water quite a bit . . . an elbow to the head is just as illegal as a charge (I know it didn't connect, but you get my drift here).
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2010 : 08:04:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
Q to Fat Elvis:
If Morris' elbow had successfully connected to Kesler's head as he came in to check him, and if Kesler had been the one who was injured, what would be your call - and more importantly, what do you think the call of the ref would have been?
And please don't try to duck this, as this is not some crazy scenario I am trying to trip you up on - this is a legitimate potential occurrence, and I've seen it happen many times, in just such cases as the one that is under discussion here. No ifs and buts here . . . it was totally possible that Kesler could have gotten that elbow in the head.
Like Alex, I was in total agreement with you on the Liambas hit, in fact I was one of the most loud and forceful guys on your side there . . . but this hit is pretty borderline in my opinion, and the fact that Morris tries a vicious elbow on the incoming checker muddies the water quite a bit . . . an elbow to the head is just as illegal as a charge (I know it didn't connect, but you get my drift here).
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Uhh...If there was actually a legitimate question there, I would be glad to answer it.....
There was no elbow thrown or raised, for intent, based on the clip. There was no 'fact' involved.
Conjecture is no fact. There was no viscious contact with any elbow.
Now, all that being said, I'll take a stab at the scenario as outlined. Is it throwing an elbow if the hitter skates into it? I would think that would be another discretionary call by the referees as to whether or not the elbow was 'thrown' into the hitter, or whether it was inadvertent contact.
In this case, as I saw it, and this is where we will differ I am sure, Morris was playing the puck in his feet along the boards, and his elbow was up to give him the angle with his stick to get the puck. If Kesler skates into that elbow, which he did, it's part if the hit he threw, which was illegal, according to the zebras, with no repercussion for Morris.
So actually, your scenario isn't that far fom the truth, except that it's missing the 'truth' part.
Now had Morris actually thrown the elbow with intent, of course there would have to be a penalty involved, as the responsibility to protect yourself, does not allow illegal play to do so. There probably, in that scenario, would be no 5 and a game for Kesler, as the charge/boarding call would have to change as the vulnerability of the hittee would then be different if he had enough time to defend himself illegaly.
And PS. we actually were miles apart on the Liambas clip, I argued your interpretation of the clip on many occasions, as you did mine, deja vu?
|
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2010 : 09:53:09
|
So you take the "he ran into my elbow" approach, and it's the other guy's fault for trying to lay a check and hitting his head on an elbow which is raised at shoulder level.
You raise your elbow to that height and try to make a pass . . .lol. Seriously.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2010 : 10:21:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
So you take the "he ran into my elbow" approach, and it's the other guy's fault for trying to lay a check and hitting his head on an elbow which is raised at shoulder level.
You raise your elbow to that height and try to make a pass . . .lol. Seriously.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
I read it completely opposite. What I see specifically Fat Elvis saying is that if Kesler gets hit with the elbow than Morris gets the call and Kesler keeps playing.
Seriously. |
|
|
|
Guest9282
( )
|
Posted - 04/05/2010 : 10:30:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
So you take the "he ran into my elbow" approach, and it's the other guy's fault for trying to lay a check and hitting his head on an elbow which is raised at shoulder level.
You raise your elbow to that height and try to make a pass . . .lol. Seriously.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Once again in your zest to 'ram your point through', you belittle another opion..lol...seriously.
I didn't say pass, I said play the puck, there IS a difference. YOU said he raised his elbow in an offensive manner, and called it fact. I said there isn't anything other than opinion to back that up, and gave my own.
I said that if Morris was to be found guilty of throwing his elbow up as protection he would indeed be guilty of an infraction, and ....why am I repeating myself? Calling on reading comprehension is your shtick.
I always agree to disagree, I just hope I don't patronize anyone while doing so...
Why would I have to take the 'he ran into my elbow approach', if that's what MAY have happened? I' ll even avoid calling it a fact to give way to your differing opinion. You asked, I answered.
The only fact that remains out of the whole incident, is that Kesler got 5 and a game.
Jeesh!(saw you use that in another post and couldn't resist).
|
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2010 : 10:33:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest9282
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
So you take the "he ran into my elbow" approach, and it's the other guy's fault for trying to lay a check and hitting his head on an elbow which is raised at shoulder level.
You raise your elbow to that height and try to make a pass . . .lol. Seriously.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Once again in your zest to 'ram your point through', you belittle another opion..lol...seriously.
I didn't say pass, I said play the puck, there IS a difference. YOU said he raised his elbow in an offensive manner, and called it fact. I said there isn't anything other than opinion to back that up, and gave my own.
I said that if Morris was to be found guilty of throwing his elbow up as protection he would indeed be guilty of an infraction, and ....why am I repeating myself? Calling on reading comprehension is your shtick.
I always agree to disagree, I just hope I don't patronize anyone while doing so...
Why would I have to take the 'he ran into my elbow approach', if that's what MAY have happened? I' ll even avoid calling it a fact to give way to your differing opinion. You asked, I answered.
The only fact that remains out of the whole incident, is that Kesler got 5 and a game.
Jeesh!(saw you use that in another post and couldn't resist).
Sorry Slozo, this post is me...in case you weren't sure.. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2010 : 10:40:56
|
Well, I didn't mean to belittle you, and I am sorry you feel that way - not what was intended. I thought it was more of a comdeic spin on it.
You said play the puck . . . if not a pass, what else would be a play on the puck - a karate chop? A love tap? a friendly reminder? All kidding aside, my point was that by seeing where his elbow is, and know how one can make a play on the puck (or a pass, same thing I reckon), the two are incongruent - it was a deliberate intent to stick a high elbow on the face of the checker. He looks, sees him coming, and raises the elbow! It's the move of a slower, wily player.
But fair enough, if you really don't see Morris raising his elbow as intentional, you don't and we'll leave it at that.
Take my comedic wording lightly my friend!
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2010 : 10:52:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
Well, I didn't mean to belittle you, and I am sorry you feel that way - not what was intended. I thought it was more of a comdeic spin on it.
You said play the puck . . . if not a pass, what else would be a play on the puck - a karate chop? A love tap? a friendly reminder? All kidding aside, my point was that by seeing where his elbow is, and know how one can make a play on the puck (or a pass, same thing I reckon), the two are incongruent - it was a deliberate intent to stick a high elbow on the face of the checker. He looks, sees him coming, and raises the elbow! It's the move of a slower, wily player.
But fair enough, if you really don't see Morris raising his elbow as intentional, you don't and we'll leave it at that.
Take my comedic wording lightly my friend!
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
We really need to have one of these discussions, as I believe it was Alex suggested, over a beer in a pub somewhere, too much nuance gets lost in the typed word.
Pull no punches with me, I take as good as I get, and I promise, I am typing with a smile. I always take things with a comedic spin, so don't change a thing, just remember the spin is always back your way too.
I'll clarify, to me, it looked like Morris looked up for the outlet pass,(I'm not convinced he saw Kesler coming either, but's that a whole other thing), lost the puck in the boards and his skates. Again, to me, it appeared he had to pull his stick in close to his body, to 'play' the puck and get it back in to a postion of control. That is what I think caused his elbow to rise. Just my opinion, I realize there may be 2 opinions here, yours......and the right one. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2010 : 16:28:13
|
I'm always up for a beer, Fat Elvis . . . and I am sure you would be too seeing as it was part of your downfall Oh, the Elvis jokes.
We can agree to disagree I guess . . . but as you can tell from many of these threads, I rarely tire of trying to make people see the light!
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Iceman778
Top Prospect
USA
25 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2010 : 01:42:17
|
| yes i agree with you |
|
|
|
Guest1757
( )
|
Posted - 04/08/2010 : 05:07:52
|
| Thank you for that great input, Iceman |
|
|
|
Guest8186
( )
|
Posted - 04/08/2010 : 07:10:59
|
| Ok time for me to way in with my 2 cents first of all let me start by saying I'm a Kessler hater but even I don't think it was that bad . a penelty for sure just because of the length of run and speed. I alsothink that the only reson he was tossed was because the game was in danger of getting out of hand with possible payback against Kessler coming later.I100% agree with what the reffs did. It was absolutly the right call and a great attempt and regaining control of the game So to sum up penelty yes susspension no nuff said |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
