| Author |
 Topic  |
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
 Posted - 04/18/2011 : 08:41:03
|
For those of you that didn't see it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iko57O8CmeM
If the NHL wanted a video to demonstrate "blindside headshot", clearly, this would work. I don't think there is any doubt that Torres is going to get suspended, question is how many games. I'm thinking 4, given that its playoffs.
Also, how that was only a 2 minute penalty on the ice is beyond me as well - lucky for us, as a 5 minute PP could have changed the game dramatically against us.
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 04/18/2011 : 08:44:42
|
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=362700
Some interesting commentary from Bob McKenzie on the hit - I was not aware of the subtleties of rule 48, particularly the levity given to hits behind the net vs hits in the neutral zone. Perhaps that explains the 2 minute minor?
McKenzie thinks there will be no suspension. Should be interesting. |
 |
|
|
Guest1774
( )
|
Posted - 04/18/2011 : 08:52:06
|
| I think Vigneault's best interest would be to bench Torres for a few games if he isn't suspended. The Canucks were getting along just fine without him and I saw a little less continuity in their 3rd and 4th lines with him in. Maybe he will wake up and see that the Canucks have a more disciplined team that. |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 04/18/2011 : 10:19:27
|
no suspension, due to the fact that it didn't violate rule 48 because behind the net is a designated hitting area - just as McKenzie said.
I am a bit surprised...hitting area or not, Torres laid a blindside headshot on Seabrook, in his first game back after a suspension for a headshot. Should have gotten something. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 04/18/2011 : 10:24:10
|
Wow, 4 games? Really?
I watched the game, so I saw it in real time, and have seen quite a few replays of the hit. I thought two things then, as I do now:
1) It was a hit that was meant to hurt Seabrook, and definitely tagetted head somewhat.
2) It was also a hockey play, in that Seabrook had the puck near the boards, Torres was coming in on the forecheck, and Seabrook should have expected to get hit.
I think it should get a one game suspension, IMHO. It seemed to target the head, and at the least it was a bit of a charge perhaps (he came in pretty fast for it). But anything more than that, I think, is overdoing it.
Torres later took Seabrook right out of the game on a clean-ish (no call) hit on him minutes later . . . he was a force.
Nuxfan, if you thought Torres wasn't "effective", please consider how much better the Hawks are with a healthy Seabrook. I mean, the whole point is to target the key players and either get them off their game, or hurt them and take them out. It's a fine line, and I would say that Torres crossed it here, but not by all that much.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 04/18/2011 : 10:36:55
|
What does this say about Torres when he comes back from a 4 game suspensions and then throws a hit like this in the first game back??
What does this say about NHL discipline when a player misses 4 games and comes back and does this??
Players still don't get it. This play could have been positive for the Canucks without the intent to injury Seabrook.
|
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 04/18/2011 : 10:49:20
|
quote:
Nuxfan, if you thought Torres wasn't "effective", please consider how much better the Hawks are with a healthy Seabrook. I mean, the whole point is to target the key players and either get them off their game, or hurt them and take them out
There is no question that Torres is an effective energy player, and plays with a lot of grit. However, intending to injure an opposing player with a dangerous hit is crossing a line, and that should be penalized. Are you insinuating that its OK for players to target other players with the intent to hurt them? |
|
|
|
semin-rules
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1915 Posts |
Posted - 04/18/2011 : 11:20:49
|
No suspension,
it didn't violate any of rule 48 |
|
|
|
just1n
PickupHockey Pro
282 Posts |
Posted - 04/18/2011 : 11:31:35
|
I'm likely a bit biased, but I didn't think it should be a suspension. Torres did not have his elbows up, glided in and made the hit. I finally saw some angles where you can see the shoulder-to-head angle of the hit, but ultimately Seabrook has to keep his head up!
There is a fine line between head-hunting and good clean hits, and this to me was a good hit. If this kind of play isn't allowed, then what's stopping players from putting themselves in vulnerable positions just so they won't get nailed? I think hitting will have to be removed from the game completely to avoid these plays. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 04/18/2011 : 12:38:43
|
This is so confusing. I'm talking this rule 48 and everything surrounding it, right down to the inconsistency in calling penalties and handing out fines and suspensions.
As far as this hit goes, i thought for sure Torres would be suspended, however i didn't know the little bit that Bob Mackenzie added in that "there are circumstances where a shoulder hitting an unsuspecting or vulnerable player in the head is entirely legal". This just makes everything more confusing!!! First there's the part of the rule which says hits behind the net will be allowed (or however it's worded) and now this?
Another thing i'm confused with is the whole "blind side hit" thing. Can someone explaing this to me? I'm not going to argue for a second that Torres makes contact with Seabrooks' head but was that really blind side? Every part of Seabrooks body, except his head which was turned, looking for the puck, is facing Torres!
Lastly, people say he should have still hit him, but not the head? Well, this too i find hard to figure out as what choice did he have? If he goes low, he probably breaks a leg or two of Seabook.
Anyway, looked like contact to the head to me and i'm surprised it wasn't followed by a suspension.
One other thing not discussed much here was the delayed visit to the "quiet room" for Seabrook? That next shift where he's hit again by Torres, he didn't look "right". The second hit looked totally clean and didn't get him high, but he looked very rattled and you could tell there was a problem. I have to wonder if the Abdelkator hit didn't start this entire process and wonder if Seabrook's been "off" since then? Still not sure how THAT hit didn't result in a suspension! |
|
|
|
Pasty7
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2312 Posts |
Posted - 04/18/2011 : 14:19:42
|
what buged me about the Torres Eberle hit was Torres was going to be first on the puck and they he decides to throw a hit instead, to me the hockey play and the reason for hitting a player in hockey is to seperate the opposing player from the puck, but if you are going to be first on the puck you have no buisness giving up on that play to throw a hit. Espcially one that could potentially hurt someone.
Torres Seabrook part of me wants to say thats good old time hockey and Seabrook has to have his head up and on a swivl in this situation. While it is true he has to have his head up Torres comes in on the Forecheck and again another part of me says if you can be first on the puck that is supposed to be your priority no? and in that situtation Torres could make the safe play the puck goes by Seabrook, Torres could have pinched the puck a long the boards. All this says to me is Torres thinks his role is to pulverize other players, but a hit like this Could destroy Seabrooks career and as much as i want to say this is a good clean hockey play i'd rather stop loseing players like Crosby for extended periods of time.
"I led the league in "Go get 'em next time." - Bob Uecker
|
|
|
|
Guest4178
( )
|
Posted - 04/18/2011 : 14:48:55
|
Ruling just in: No suspension for Torres.
Interesting (but not surprising) to hear the reaction from the two opposing coaches about the hit.
Joel Quenneville thought it should have been a major penalty. "Brutal. Major. Absolutely," he said. "They missed it. We could have scored four goals on that play. He’s a big Western Canadian kid. Somebody else might have been on a stretcher."
And Vigneault's reaction: “A physical dimension is part of his game. Obviously, there are some adjustments and some education that all players have to go through, but I look at that hit and I compare that hit to (Ryan) Getzlaf on (Dan Hamhuis). I compare that hit to (Alexei) Ponikarovsky on Hamhuis - same type of hit - and Getzlaf didn’t even get a penalty on his.
“I mean, hockey’s a collision sport. There’s a lot of intensity. You’re always walking that fine line.”
Now I wonder if things were reversed? Let's say Brouwer hit Ehroff in the same manner. What would the coaches say then? (And yes, I understand that coaches have to stick up for their players.) |
|
|
|
Mario 66
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
360 Posts |
Posted - 04/18/2011 : 15:52:13
|
I could care a less about the coach's opinion on the situation as they are paid to be biased. As far as no suspension can't say I agree with the outcome, but what difference does my opinion make.
I'm all for a Ovechkin on Jagr or Subban, Stevens or Phaneuf through the middle of the ice type hit. Problem I have with this hit is that there is absolutely no attempt on the puck whats so ever. Same as there was no attempt for the puck on Eberle. Torres dumps the puck, slows down & then makes a B line for Seabrook when the puck is tossed around the boards. Seabrook never even got to touch the puck, which, shows how premature the hit was and how predetermined Torre's intentions where to blow another guy up. This guy has all of a sudden stolen Steve Downie's brain. Two identical plays in back to back games where he show's no desire for the puck & total desire for collecting some skulls. I know he got use to hunting early in Columbus, but he can't start replacing the animal trophy's with human trophy's 
Honestly, anticipated another 4 gamer simply do to recklessness. Especially, in his first game back. After the hit he was astonished to be receiving a penalty. There was only 3 -5 different calls the ref could of made on the play.
That said good to see the Nux doing well & congrats to the Nuxfan's on here who maybe finally bidding their time time to plan the parade. BOL
In youth we learn; in age we understand |
|
|
|
just1n
PickupHockey Pro
282 Posts |
Posted - 04/18/2011 : 16:04:03
|
The lack of suspension certainly doesn't make it much clearer for fans trying to understand what is a suspension and what is not. It's a fine line.
What should have Torres done instead of hitting Seabrook in this case, may I ask? Come in slower? Skate by? I'm curious what should have been done differently. |
|
|
|
Guest4803
( )
|
|
|
Mario 66
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
360 Posts |
Posted - 04/18/2011 : 16:21:35
|
Well considering Torre's dumped the puck in and was the lone player on the off wing there was certainly nothing obstructing his view that Seabrook had no idea he was coming & considering the puck was coming right back to him after the dump in he was the lone player approaching the play at close to full speed.
So complete vision of the play, of the opposing players vulnerability & the ability to control his speed seems like he could of done lots. Had he slowed up on the play & allowed Seabrook to gain possession then remove him from the puck he would of had Mason Raymond sitting at the side of the net with a yawning cage. Instead, Chicago scores on the PP & fortunately for Van it wasn't a momentum changer in the series.
In youth we learn; in age we understand |
|
|
|
Mario 66
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
360 Posts |
Posted - 04/18/2011 : 16:26:48
|
Clearly Colin has been into the Scotch a little early this playoffs & sharing in the sorrow of Gregory. How that is not charging is beyond me.
In youth we learn; in age we understand |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 04/18/2011 : 17:14:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mario 66
Problem I have with this hit is that there is absolutely no attempt on the puck whats so ever.
Mario, i don't understand this thinking. To hit a guy, most of the time, you're NOT making an attempt on the puck! You're trying to get the guy off the puck! Look at a guy finishing his check. The puck is gone! There's not attempt at the puck when a dman has dumped it out and a hard charging forward hits him into the boards is there?
quote:
Originally posted by Mario 66
Seabrook never even got to touch the puck, which, shows how premature the hit was.
Look again, watch the puck. The puck is RIGHT THERE for him to play when contact is made. Sure, he doesn't have it on his stick, but he might have had Torres not hit him. That's part of the reason it wasn't considered "premature" OR late. Also why the call should have been roughing or something else and not interference!
This is the part of what Campbell said that counters your opinion... "He did not charge his opponent or leave his feet to deliver this check. He did not deliver an elbow or extended forearm and this hit was not 'late'."
Regardless, i thought they'd suspend him for the fact his shoulder hit his head but now we hear of this mysterious "grey area" that states that all headshots are not illegal? WTF? The guys on the radio were referring to is as "Area 51" lol..... |
|
|
|
Guest4241
( )
|
Posted - 04/18/2011 : 18:16:11
|
I fear that the game is heading down a bad road... and not the one that the media keeps worrying about. If we keep this up, the NHL will be one big tickle fight, and the rest of hockey will follow. CLEAN HIT! If this is not okay, hockey is walking a slippery slope. I played against Raffi Torres in the OHL and I knew where he was every time we were on the ice together in order to avoid a similar fate as Brent last night. Why is it that a fantastic NHL defensman like Seabroook has his head down and is not expecting to get hammered when picking up the puck behind his own net? The very act of a clean body check lends itself to contacting the head area. When I grew up I was told to keep my head up, however in the past year or 2 the game has changed and now the puck carrier is not responsible for keeping his head up and keeping himself safe.... No, the attacker must now lay-off, and it's ridiculous. In light of all of his concussions, maybe Seabroook needs to protect himself a little better.
This is what I hear... media guys who have never played hockey at a high level saying that guys need to lay off. There is 2 problems with that
1) The second Raffi lays off hits like this, he is out of the NHL becasue he will be deemed ineffective.
2) Along the same lines as number one... when Raffi Torres sees a guy like Seabrook with the puck, or about to get the puck, he must eliminate him from the play immediately. These guys are so good that you cannot give them an inch of space. If Raffi starts giving guys space to consider whether he might tap their chin with his shoulder, he's done.
I also hear former NHLers in the media saying that there is no respect in the game these days... Are you kidding me? My buddies were You Tubing some of Mark Messier's atrocious elbows back in the day, that would have had him suspedned for 30 plus games on a nightly basis. This so called lack of respect is actually just a faster game combined with the obvious fact that recently sports medicine has changed the definition of a conucssion dramatically . |
|
|
|
just1n
PickupHockey Pro
282 Posts |
Posted - 04/18/2011 : 20:27:54
|
| Completely agree with Guest4241. Well said. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 04/18/2011 : 20:40:21
|
Here are a few points to consider:
1) Does Torres go for the puck??
2) Does Seabrook have the puck??
The point of a body check is to separate the man from the puck.
The point of a body check when the opposition player does not have the puck is what???
Slippery slope? Ask Sidney Crosby or Marc Savard what kind of slope they are on. No one wants hockey to be a patty cake league with no body contact. But no one wants to see players get hurt. And don't confuse the obvious difference between the act of a body check making contact to the head and the act of a body check that targets and makes initial contact with the head. They are two very different things.
And again, here comes the "I played the game at a higher level so I know more.' What about the Doctors that are diagnosing these concussions and the Scientists studying the long term effects of concussions. I guess their opinion only matters if they have played in the OHL???
|
|
|
|
Pasty7
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2312 Posts |
Posted - 04/18/2011 : 20:46:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Here are a few points to consider:
1) Does Torres go for the puck??
2) Does Seabrook have the puck??
The point of a body check is to separate the man from the puck.
The point of a body check when the opposition player does not have the puck is what???
Slippery slope? Ask Sidney Crosby or Marc Savard what kind of slope they are on. No one wants hockey to be a patty cake league with no body contact. But no one wants to see players get hurt. And don't confuse the obvious difference between the act of a body check making contact to the head and the act of a body check that targets and makes initial contact with the head. They are two very different things.
And again, here comes the "I played the game at a higher level so I know more.' What about the Doctors that are diagnosing these concussions and the Scientists studying the long term effects of concussions. I guess their opinion only matters if they have played in the OHL???
i played this game at a pretty high level and i agree competly with you beans,, i think in my post you and i have said pretty much the same thing... sure things happen fast at a high level but you also play at this high level regularly and know where and what you are doing on the ice,,
"I led the league in "Go get 'em next time." - Bob Uecker
|
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 04/18/2011 : 20:49:59
|
@Guest4241
I don't agree that if he doesn't make this hit he's out of hockey (that was his argument after the Eberle hit as well as I recall). Torres has been highly effective all year long by making clean hard bodychecks and being an energy guy. Lots of other energy players in the NHL get by just fine without resorting to headshots. Torres is at his best when he plays a controlled but high energy game. Make the big bodychecks, pound guys into the boards. But if he keeps up the headshot crap, thats whats going to put him out of a job.
As for "area 51" (nice one Alex), I don't know what the difference is between a check to the head at centre ice, and a check to the head behind the net. Don't they both target the head?
|
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 04/18/2011 : 22:00:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Here are a few points to consider:
1) Does Torres go for the puck??
2) Does Seabrook have the puck??
The point of a body check is to separate the man from the puck.
The point of a body check when the opposition player does not have the puck is what???
And don't confuse the obvious difference between the act of a body check making contact to the head and the act of a body check that targets and makes initial contact with the head. They are two very different things.
Beans, bear with me while i answer your questions while keeping in mind, i'm not playing the "homer bias card", i'm simply just as confused as everyone else is about these calls, lack of calls, suspensions and lack of suspensions!!!
First of all, "does Torres go for the puck"? NO! Clearly he doesn't. BUT, what does that matter? Is it illegal to hit a guy while making no attempt at the puck? I don't think so.
"Does Seabrook have the puck?" Uh, not exactly, BUT, it's at his feet / stick and in a very playable position. If you watch the replay closely, it's not even debatable that the puck is right there when contact is made! What if Seabrook's winger was yelling at him to leave the puck coming around the boards to him? Is the hitter supposed to know that the guy is going to leave it? I'm not suggesting that's what happened and in fact think Seabrook was going to play it but i'm just trying to make a point. Another example to counter/answer your question would be the scenario i continue to bring up, that being "finishing your check". Once a player makes his pass, the puck is no longer in his possession but it's okay to "finish your check"???
When you say a bodycheck is meant to separate a guy from the puck, is that your opinion or is that a known fact? Not trying to be a smart ass but i think a body check has more purpose than that. I feel they're also used to send a message and perhaps make a player change the way he plays! It can simply be used to take a guy off his game, not just the puck! I think this answers your last question as well, the one about "what purpose does hitting a guy without the puck have"?
BTW, anyone see the T. Pyatt hit on Lidstrom in the first period tonight? Not a mention from the play by play team but in the replay, it's clear Pyatt nails him in the head! Doubt anything comes of it as Lidstrom got up immediately and wasn't affected by it really but it just shows how tough it is to notice some of these as the contact happens so quick! |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2011 : 10:36:52
|
Alex, if what you are saying is true and you are confusing the issue more with your thought???
Consider this, is there a penalty for laying a proper body check to a player without the puck???
Yes
Is there a penalty for laying a proper body check to a player with the puck??
No
If we(as fans) want clarity to the rules than proper definitions are required. If we start making judgments such as 'the puck was in his skates' or 'the players was about to play the puck' then we are not making it very clear.
Torres was not going for the puck himself, meaning it is not a hockey play. Seabrook does not have the puck, meaning Torres hit him illegally. There was a penalty on the play meaning the referee's also agreed it was an illegal play.
That much should be defined as logically and reasonable to everyone. Should it not??? |
|
|
|
Canucks Man
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1547 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2011 : 11:11:03
|
I completely agree with the interference call on the play, Seabrook did not have the puck, I also agree with the no suspension. We are very close to having a no contact league if hits like these are takin out of the game.
Btw I just read on the tsn app that seabrook won't play tonight "upper body injury"
CANUCKS RULE!!!
|
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2011 : 12:24:35
|
| I'd be stunned if Seabrook didn't suffer a concussion from that hit... "upper body" for sure. |
|
|
|
Mario 66
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
360 Posts |
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2011 : 14:21:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Consider this, is there a penalty for laying a proper body check to a player without the puck???
Yes
No, not always. In the case of a player making a pass, another player, legally, is allowed to hit that player who just made the pass, even though he no longer has the puck. This small "grace" period is supposed to be only immediately after the pass as until it's touched, the passer is still considered the player in possession. However, we've all seen many times a dman make a quick 10' pass to his partner, only to have a guy finish his check a couple seconds later.
Now, i believe the point you're trying to make is that a player without the puck is not fair game and in this case, Seabrook was yet to touch the puck, correct? If so, my thinking was that because the puck was all but on his stick (the hit wasn't extremely early, it's not as though the puck was still 10' from him), he was fair game? Maybe i'm wrong on this? However, they'd have to be careful the way they enforce this as it would be very easy for a guy to intentionally not touch the puck when seeing a hit coming so as to force an interference penalty. Kinda along the lines of a guy seeing ahit coming (esp when teammates yell to warn him) and bailing on a pass to brace for a hit. This happens often and the hit is not penalized and i'm guessing it's because the puck was playable and intentionally left by the guy who's getting hit.
Beans, i'm just throwing this out there, not saying it's 100% correct, just trying to figure all this crap out myself.
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Torres was not going for the puck himself, meaning it is not a hockey play.
How do you come to this conclusion? Not every "hockey play" involves "going for the puck", especially most hits!
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Seabrook does not have the puck, meaning Torres hit him illegally.
Still not sure on this, as discussed above relating to whether or not it's considered possession at that point?
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
There was a penalty on the play meaning the referee's also agreed it was an illegal play.
Gotta say this much, when i saw it live, i figured it was a penalty as well. However, now that we learn about "area 51" and see that Torres didn't leave his feet, didn't raise an elbow and didn't take a running start at the hit, isn't it fair to say the ref made a mistake???
Seriously, i'm not trying to get into an argument here, i'm simply confused as to the actual rules of puck possession. A great example would be Lemieux back in the Olympics with his great "dummy" to Kariya for the goal. Had someone nailed Mario while the puck was in his feet, would it be called interference? That's where i'm confused! |
|
|
|
WhiteBread9
Top Prospect
Canada
6 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2011 : 14:55:35
|
| Seabrook needs to keep his head up. Is it a coincidence that he has gotten absolutely rocked behind his own net multiple times in the past year? My answer is no, he has no awareness of who is on the ice when he is in the most dangerous area. He needs to take responsibility for what happens to him when he has his head down in the corner or behind the net. The players are starting to use the rules to protect them instead of not putting themselves in dangerous situations. This is why the NHL is eventually going to become a no contact or minimal contact league. |
|
|
|
Guest4178
( )
|
Posted - 04/19/2011 : 14:56:12
|
Everyone raises good points, including Guest4241 who states "when Raffi Torres sees a guy like Seabrook with the puck, or about to get the puck, he must eliminate him from the play immediately. These guys are so good that you cannot give them an inch of space."
There's nothing wrong with this statement (unless you're trying to read between the lines), and in fact, this is what most coaches teach players at almost every level of hockey, from when body checking is allowed, and especially at the NHL level. I heard it as early as pee wee hockey: "take him out,", eliminate him from the play," or "make him pay" were things I heard from coaches routinely. Some players interpreted this to mean they should deliver a clean body check, while some players interpreted the message differently and/or dangerously. Coaches and officials (and sometimes parents at early levels) were there to enforce what was acceptable, and there were good coaches, officials and parents, and there were bad ones.
Getting back to the postings, I think Alex summarizes things very well, and while you can debate the point, there's nothing in the rule book which states you have to go for the puck. As long as the player has the puck, it's legal to body check that player. The tough part is what do you do when the puck is on its way to the player at the same time the opposing player closes in on this player? And to Alex's point, what if a player deliberately lets a puck go past him to illicit an interference call?
I can't argue with Beans that there's a penalty when you hit someone who doesn't have the puck, but how in the world can a player skating at 25 miles per hour who anticipates a play (and "sees" a puck travelling toward an opposing player's stick) change things mid-flight?
Everyone here knows that hockey is a fast-paced game, whether you've played it or not. (I tend to think someone who has played at the highest levels has a perspective different, not necessarily better, than those who have not played the game. Regardless of this, I respect everyone's point of view based on their insight, not their playing experience.)
I've watched the game differently this past season, and in any given game, a puck bounce here, or a player movement there can be the difference between a clean check, a penalty or a multi-game suspension. And not because the actions or intent were necessarily different – it's that split second happenstance which changes the outcome sometimes, and it's not usually clear if the player applying the hit was doing so with ill intent or in a predatory manner.
Sure some hits are black or white, but there are a great number of hits where a millisecond or millimitre change one way or another can be the difference between what is perceived as clean or fair, or whether a player bounces back or lies on the ice injured.
To address the Torres hit on Seabrook, when I consider all the factors (including Torres' recent suspension), I agree with Slozo who stated "I think it should get a one game suspension, IMHO. It seemed to target the head, and at the least it was a bit of a charge perhaps (he came in pretty fast for it). But anything more than that, I think, is overdoing it."
Maybe it's because Slozo used words or phrases like "seemed to" and "bit of a charge," is the reason why I agree with his comments, because for me, I can't always tell a player's intent with some hits. There's no doubt that players "hit to hurt," or to "take a player out," but this can take place within the rules of the game.
|
|
|
|
just1n
PickupHockey Pro
282 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2011 : 15:03:14
|
Whitebread! You're using my avatar!
Scott Burnside just wrote an article on the latest suspensions. My favorite line:
"Seabrook wasn't scheduled to play in Tuesday's potentially season-ending game against Vancouver. Torres? Sure, get on out there Raffi and just remember, if you're going to decapitate someone, make sure it's in the "magic" zone. Wherever that is. "
Haha @ Magic zone |
|
|
|
Guest4241
( )
|
Posted - 04/19/2011 : 16:54:57
|
Beans, this is Guest4241 resonding to fair challenges.. hope I can clear some things up
Let me first say that I anticipated that you may think that because I played a “higher level” of hockey than some people, I think I know more about the game than others. I apologize if this is how it sounded. This is certainly not true and it certainly was not my intention to come across that way, but I was getting long winded enough and did not want to go on even longer by qualifying all of my comments; but I will explain now. First off, I happen to know many people who did not play at a high level of hockey who I would consider to have far more advanced hockey minds than I. The reason I brought up my past experience in hockey is because this particular issue struck a chord when I was playing, but not until I played against really skilled forwards in major junior hockey. How does one respect another’s safety while trying to maintain their own high level of play, especially when it is their job to be a checker? It seemed obvious enough to me, until I was among people far more skilled than before. What I found at this point was that when I slowed a little to lay- off on a skilled forward in a vulnerable position, my respect for his safety was usually rewarded with the puck being in the back of my net. It gave him the split second he needed to do something with the puck. As for my other controversial point, I am sometimes unsure if media personalities realize that at the NHL level that certain border line hits involve the split second decision to hit someone in a possibly vulnerable position and hurting them (unlikely) or risk having them beat you and score (more likely) and possibly be sent to the minors if the pattern continues. I don't want to get too dramtic about this b/c good points have been made about Torres playing whe he is controlled an dhow effective he is. But the way he plays does keep him in the league, that's tough to argue. And the way he plays also lends itself to possible crossing the line like we see here.
I am suspect of a TSN or Score announcer who seems to think there is no grey area when it comes to penalizing these players. The sad fact is that the rules of the game have changed, but the expectations for performance of a guy like Raffi Torres remain the same. This creates a major grey area. And I see some of these media personalities, comfortably standing at an arm’s length ,claiming this is a black and white issue and that there is no room for this or these players in hockey.
You also mentioned the medical science of concussions and questioned whether I think they are wrong. I certainly believe everything they are saying. In fact my own brother is currently doing his master s in this field. The game is faster, but let’s be honest, head shots have always been a problem… the media has just decided in the light of new science evidence to put a real spot light on it. And yes, I do believe it’s true that there are long term issues with concussions, but what to do? Take hitting out of the game? Yes players would be safer, but we’d all probably be a little safer if we didn’t leave the house in the morning too. (excuse my obvious sarcasm) My point is that we are headed for a no contact league. I by no means think it is perfect right now, and I think we need to educate players of the danger of blind side hits, but maybe even more so on how to protect themselves and not leave themselves so vulnerable. Recently, anti-bullying educators have attempted to target the victim and teach them how to avoid being an easy target for bullies, because it was deemed more effective to teach the victim rather than deter the bully. Maybe the NHL needs new education on how to take hit, or what not to do when picking up a puck behind the net, or carrying it down the ice. (See Johan Franzen’s cut face on why you don’t turn to the boards right before the point of contact from a defender). Bruce Budreau said it well; in the wake of the Chara/Pachioretty hit he said that players know, or should know, they have to assume a level of risk in this profession. I respect your challenges and hopefully I cleared up my stance.
|
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2011 : 16:56:58
|
Well said 4178, and originally as i've stated numerous times, i too thought he'd get at least a game. It's only since Mr Campbell informed us of "Area 51" that i can understand the no suspension result!
Your very last line....
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4178
There's no doubt that players "hit to hurt," or to "take a player out," but this can take place within the rules of the game.
.....is something i've been talking about for a long time! It's hard to imagine anyone not realizing that guys "hit to hurt" but the good ones do it cleanly!
|
|
|
|
Mario 66
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
360 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2011 : 17:00:44
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeZDE9H3_vU
Can those of you still attempting to use the reasoning "Seabrook may have been letting the puck go or a teammate is calling for it please show me where this appearant teammate could be (7:50)? Torres is the lone player on this side of the ice.
How is it that I have seen some Canucks fans (you know who you are  ) say Downie deserved a one game maybe two and then argue this deserves nothing.
WB9 I agree, defensman must have their head up & at times are responsible for the outcome, but are you responsible for the outcome if a guy throw's a blind sucker punch to the side of your temple? This is no different except Torres uses his body as the fist. If he hits him a half second later in the chest Seabrook is still out & I'd be arguing this as a hit of the yr candidate. I'm cool with the way he delivered the hit (didn't leave feet, solid shoulder impact) its when he delivered it. You can't claim the speed of the game or a guy trying to get out of the way (you can't move from something you can't see) Torres is the only player on the ice that could control the outcome. He saw Seabrook looking the other way and saw the puck coming that way, there is nothing obstructing his view that should possibly make any of us believe he thought Seabrook touched the puck cuz he was already through him before the puck was ever touched & the fact that the puck works its way around the boards at the same pathethic speed further emphasizes how early Torres was.
I understand the homer aspect of defending Torres, but come on I said Kunitz deserves 10 for his blatant stupidity and his best Cooke impersonation & none of you believe that the contact is premature and doesn't atleast deserve a single game especially, first game back from another stupid decision? Must be the Magic stuff in Van along with the magic zone on the ice that are hindering your ability to view clearly 
How do some fans argue if this type of hit is taken out of the game, it will eventually become a no contact league? Blindside, early hits is what we were taught?? The Downie & Torres hits are big time hits that we love to see, but there was no need for Downie to an "Air Jordan" tribute & no excuse that Torres didn't see Seabrook's head the other way. Would you accept this hit if your son or daughter / brother or sister where blind sided? or is it only because there is no affect on you that some of you deem this the victims fault in this instance & not the culprit. I am sure if it was someone importance to you, you would not tell them gotta keep your head up, but instead standing on the glass churping for the other kid to be tossed.
Yes every hit is intended to hurt / send a message, not a players skull into space
In youth we learn; in age we understand |
Edited by - Mario 66 on 04/19/2011 17:06:14 |
|
|
|
Guest4241
( )
|
Posted - 04/19/2011 : 17:05:19
|
| In all of this, I should make it clear that I agree, the best do it within rules... good point. |
|
|
|
Guest4241
( )
|
Posted - 04/19/2011 : 18:07:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mario 66
I could care a less about the coach's opinion on the situation as they are paid to be biased. As far as no suspension can't say I agree with the outcome, but what difference does my opinion make.
I'm all for a Ovechkin on Jagr or Subban, Stevens or Phaneuf through the middle of the ice type hit. Problem I have with this hit is that there is absolutely no attempt on the puck whats so ever. Same as there was no attempt for the puck on Eberle. Torres dumps the puck, slows down & then makes a B line for Seabrook when the puck is tossed around the boards. Seabrook never even got to touch the puck, which, shows how premature the hit was and how predetermined Torre's intentions where to blow another guy up. This guy has all of a sudden stolen Steve Downie's brain. Two identical plays in back to back games where he show's no desire for the puck & total desire for collecting some skulls. I know he got use to hunting early in Columbus, but he can't start replacing the animal trophy's with human trophy's
Honestly, anticipated another 4 gamer simply do to recklessness. Especially, in his first game back. After the hit he was astonished to be receiving a penalty. There was only 3 -5 different calls the ref could of made on the play.
That said good to see the Nux doing well & congrats to the Nuxfan's on here who maybe finally bidding their time time to plan the parade. BOL
In youth we learn; in age we understand
Stevens? Oh Mario, surely you can agree that Scott Stevens would spend more games suspended than on the ice if he played under these rules (I exagerate). They were some great hits, but this is my point; they're not legal today. Stevens on Kariya in game 6 of the finals a few years back is the most classic late blindside I can think of... 10 games or thereabouts in this climate. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2011 : 18:42:13
|
Guest, I completely appreciate your response and I too must apologies. I generalized you with the group on here who automatically assume their knowledge is higher than any other because they played the game to a higher level an someone else. It will not happen again.
To the point at hand, let's just say I don't have time to reply to your post completely at this time but I will. There are many things I agree with and a few questions I have.
Finally, Seabrook's absense in Game 4 should tell a little something about how dangerous this hit was. What I think people need to worry less about is what is or isn't legal by yesterday's standards. If the game is faster, bigger, strong, and different equipment than some rules have to also change. It won't happen over night and it doesn't have to take hitting completely out of the game. But the more things like this happen the more I see the extremists point of, "Is somone going to have to die to get something to change?" |
|
|
|
Guest4241
( )
|
Posted - 04/19/2011 : 19:05:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Guest, I completely appreciate your response and I too must apologies. I generalized you with the group on here who automatically assume their knowledge is higher than any other because they played the game to a higher level an someone else. It will not happen again.
To the point at hand, let's just say I don't have time to reply to your post completely at this time but I will. There are many things I agree with and a few questions I have.
Finally, Seabrook's absense in Game 4 should tell a little something about how dangerous this hit was. What I think people need to worry less about is what is or isn't legal by yesterday's standards. If the game is faster, bigger, strong, and different equipment than some rules have to also change. It won't happen over night and it doesn't have to take hitting completely out of the game. But the more things like this happen the more I see the extremists point of, "Is somone going to have to die to get something to change?"
I completely agree with your point, I should not dwell on the past as much, but I do think that more has changed in the massive amp up in media exposure than the actual game itself to cause the fuss this issue has caused . In my self relfection I am realizing that I might be trying to defend the player who is caught in the middle. Maybe this is Raffi, maybe not, ... but in the wake of what happended the other night, Raffi is being told to "keep it up". He is also told that "this is what you need to do to be effective". In the end, whether we agree on suspension or not, I will revert to an earlier point; that I know the rules and the game are changing, but for the poor 3rd and 4th liners, I think the inner demands are the same. "do what gotya here, or someone else will". Again I don't want to get dramatic about guys losing their livelihoods by getting sent to the minors, but I also think it's naive to think that they're (the powers that be) not constantly reviewing rosters looking for a guy to replace you. These guys are the most directly affected by the change and are sometimes unfairly portrayed as villains... I do stress sometimes. Thanks for your reply. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2011 : 20:06:29
|
Mario.....obviously i'm one of the "homers" you speak of who can't admit Torres should have been suspended, correct? Well, like i said earlier, i immediately thought this hit was suspendable, UNTIL i heard about what we're jokingly are referring to as "Area 51".
As for the "what if" scenario of another player calling for him to leave it, i was using that as more of an example saying this sort of thing could lead to a guy intentionally drawing an interference penalty. Do i think Seabrook had a team mate yelling for him to leave it? NO, and i don't think i said that. Rather it was one of Beans' pet peeve "what if's". Oh, and for the record, watch the vid again, and tell me that the puck isn't RIGHT THERE when contact is made, and i'll tell you you're blind. 
quote:
Originally posted by Mario 66
How is it that I have seen some Canucks fans (you know who you are ) say Downie deserved a one game maybe two and then argue this deserves nothing.
This is the easiest answer of the day! Because Downie clearly left his feet which constitutes charging! Lemme ask you the following:
Did Torres leave his feet? NO
Did Torres throw and elbow? NO
Did Torres hit Seabrooks head? YES
Did any of us know there's an "area 51" rule? NO!
By the rules, was the Torres hit legal? YES.
Call me a homer, but there's no arguing this considering we know the NHL would have reviewed this and prob would have loved to suspend Torres again to set an example!
Just because you admit that Kunitz's hit was brutal doesn't mean i'm going to automatically do the same on this one. Bottom line is this, do i think the rule should be enforced EVERYWHERE on the ice? YES. Therefore, i think this should be suspendable, unfortunately, by the rules, it's not. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2011 : 20:18:48
|
Alex, you are splitting hairs. The hits were very similar. Did Downie leave his feet? Absolutely. Does that mean Torres's hit is automatically clean??
Nope.
I am really done with this. There are far more important things to spend my time on. Such as being concerned for the Canucks when I saw 7 goals pumped in by a team on the ropes and steady stream of Canucks heading the penalty box. Not saying that Chicago is coming back to win this series, but the glimpse of the Canucks from the last two years makes me smile just a little.
I also know the refs and their misconduct penalties to John Scott saves Torres from the beating of his life tonight.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Torres on Seabrook - how many games? 
