Khornholio wrote:Did Chara ever blow it. Wow. Game 3 should be a slug fest. Alas, I won't get a chance to see it. I might be able to catch the first period is all. Wondering if the Green men are going to be beaten by the B fans.
That OT goal was all on Thomas..... he got too agressive and dove way out of the net and couldn't get back fast enough to even attempt the block. Chara was fighting for it but Burrows wasn't giving up the position. Though, sometimes it can be worth taking a minor.....
Here we go. Everyone's going to pile on but you are allowed to finish your check. In fact you damn well better finish your heck or you'll hear about it from your coach. Also it was not a blindside hit. No one said that. Not looking were your going doesn't make where you're going your blindside.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
KamikazeCanuck wrote:That was a clean hit. Horton got hurt because he was admiring his pass.
What?
Have you ever played hockey?
No, that was 3 seconds after the puck left the stick, he left his feet, and aimed at the head.
It was a bad hit 3 times over.
No it was less than 2 seconds. 28 frames according to CBC. You're allowed a 2 count. Tons of hits happened in that game of the same delay this ones going to be controversial because a guy got hurt.
Dogma don't be a dick. You don't know what "Vancouver" broadcasters said. And apparently you play women's hockey because hits to the head are legal and always have. I don't know why anyone would think otherwise. Wait I do, that stupid rule 48 that was instituted about a year ago. Except it doesn't make headshots illegal it makes blindside hits illegal.
Now are really saying your coaches and teammates tell you to skate with your head down and admire all your passes? That's some great advice your getting.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Dogma don't be a dick. You don't know what "Vancouver" broadcasters said. And apparently you play women's hockey because hits to the head are legal and always have. I don't know why anyone would think otherwise. Wait I do, that stupid rule 48 that was instituted about a year ago. Except it doesn't make headshots illegal it makes blindside hits illegal.
Now are really saying your coaches and teammates tell you to skate with your head down and admire all your passes? That's some great advice your getting.
When checking the player you shouldn't being aiming for the head unless your intention is to hospitalize the opponent and put yourself in a chance of getting a suspension. Safety should I always be number 1 when it
Fine, but the point remains.
The bottom line is that I've seen a lot more vicous checks in hockey and you all have too. The way it always goes is some spectacular hit will happen and we all appluad it but when I a guy gets hurt we single out that instance as something terrible when often it was just chance. We judge the incident on it's results rather than on it's own. The NHL gets a lot of criticism for making decisions like this too but everyone else does it too. I defended Chara too during his dark days too. That was an accident. I hated the overreaction there too and here it comes again.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Fine, but the point remains.
The bottom line is that I've seen a lot more vicous checks in hockey and you all have too. The way it always goes is some spectacular hit will happen and we all appluad it but when I a guy gets hurt we single out that instance as something terrible when often it was just chance. We judge the incident on it's results rather than on it's own. The NHL gets a lot of criticism for making decisions like this too but everyone else does it too. I defended Chara too during his dark days too. That was an accident. I hated the overreaction there too and here it comes again.
It's possible to have big hits without hospitalizing someone, there's a reason most hockey players aim for the chest and back area.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Dogma don't be a dick. You don't know what "Vancouver" broadcasters said.
No, actually, I do. This is the information age, and I pay a tidy sum to get multiple broadcast feeds.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:
And apparently you play women's hockey because hits to the head are legal and always have.
Where have you been for the last 5 years? Not only are hits to the head been a hot topic, they were named illegal for this season.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:
I don't know why anyone would think otherwise. Wait I do, that stupid rule 48 that was instituted about a year ago. Except it doesn't make headshots illegal it makes blindside hits illegal.
The name of the rule is illegal check to the head. The text is:
A lateral or blind side hit to an opponent where the head is targeted and/or the principal point of contact is not permitted.
What are you even talking about?
KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Now are really saying your coaches and teammates tell you to skate with your head down and admire all your passes? That's some great advice your getting.
Read the damn rule book.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KamikazeCanuck wrote:
The bottom line is that I've seen a lot more vicous checks in hockey and you all have too.
Sure, but that doesn't mean this hit was not vicious.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:
The way it always goes is some spectacular hit will happen and we all appluad it but when I a guy gets hurt we single out that instance as something terrible when often it was just chance.
No, the way it goes is as follows.
Big hit.
Hitting team cheers.
Opposing team boos.
Hit is reviewed with appeals from both teams.
And then some people on the internet with no athletic experience talk about how the hit wasn't a big deal.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Dogma don't be a dick. You don't know what "Vancouver" broadcasters said.
No, actually, I do. This is the information age, and I pay a tidy sum to get multiple broadcast feeds.
Yeah that must be true, except there is no Vancouver broadcast of the game just a national one. Furthermore, many of them agree with you. It almost like you just a fan giving some immature, emotional reaction by dissing the other team's city.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:
And apparently you play women's hockey because hits to the head are legal and always have.
Where have you been for the last 5 years? Not only are hits to the head been a hot topic, they were named illegal for this season.
No they weren't
KamikazeCanuck wrote:
I don't know why anyone would think otherwise. Wait I do, that stupid rule 48 that was instituted about a year ago. Except it doesn't make headshots illegal it makes blindside hits illegal.
The name of the rule is illegal check to the head. The text is:
A lateral or blind side hit to an opponent where the head is targeted and/or the principal point of contact is not permitted.
What are you even talking about?
Yeah, you see what happened there is you thought you were making a point but actually proved me right. The blindside hit to the head is what's illegal. All you did was show a blindside that doesn't hit the head is legal.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Now are really saying your coaches and teammates tell you to skate with your head down and admire all your passes? That's some great advice your getting.
Read the damn rule book.
You first
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KamikazeCanuck wrote:
The bottom line is that I've seen a lot more vicous checks in hockey and you all have too.
Sure, but that doesn't mean this hit was not vicious.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:
The way it always goes is some spectacular hit will happen and we all appluad it but when I a guy gets hurt we single out that instance as something terrible when often it was just chance.
No, the way it goes is as follows.
Big hit.
Hitting team cheers.
Opposing team boos.
Hit is reviewed with appeals from both teams.
And then some people on the internet with no athletic experience talk about how the hit wasn't a big deal.
Yeah, that's about right. What did you think of the Chara hit btw?
KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Yeah that must be true, except there is no Vancouver broadcast of the game just a national one. Furthermore, many of them agree with you. It almost like you just a fan giving some immature, emotional reaction by dissing the other team's city.
Wait, what? Team 1040 and the CBC both feature local commentators.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:
No they weren't
Its in the text of the rule. No one actually throws head on checks.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Yeah, you see what happened there is you thought you were making a point but actually proved me right. The blindside hit to the head is what's illegal. All you did was show a blindside that doesn't hit the head is legal.
No, any hit to the head which comes from either a blindside or lateral angle is illegal. The Rome hit was obviously at least lateral.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Yeah, that's about right. What did you think of the Chara hit btw?
Vicious. He has no history, but when you've been playing that long you know every inch of your playing surface.
This coming from a guy who once tore off an opposing players helmet, and threw it at another opposing player.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Yeah that must be true, except there is no Vancouver broadcast of the game just a national one. Furthermore, many of them agree with you. It almost like you just a fan giving some immature, emotional reaction by dissing the other team's city.
Wait, what? Team 1040 and the CBC both feature local commentators.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:
No they weren't
Its in the text of the rule. No one actually throws head on checks.
What do you even mean by that? Like players don't hit others directly from in front? For someone who apparently pays a lot of money for a lot of hockey channels you don't seem to watch much hockey. Of the top of my head look up Willie Mitchel's completely legal hit on Toews. To Which Toews only reply was "I had my head down". Let's see what else: How about Scott Stevens entire career. It happens all the time.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Yeah, you see what happened there is you thought you were making a point but actually proved me right. The blindside hit to the head is what's illegal. All you did was show a blindside that doesn't hit the head is legal.
No, any hit to the head which comes from either a blindside or lateral angle is illegal. The Rome hit was obviously at least lateral.
Since you don't think it's possible for any hit to at least not be from the lateral I could see how you could come to that conclusion
KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Yeah, that's about right. What did you think of the Chara hit btw?
Vicious. He has no history, but when you've been playing that long you know every inch of your playing surface.
This coming from a guy who once tore off an opposing players helmet, and threw it at another opposing player.
Neither does Rome. So I guess he's innocent too? No, it doesn't matter.
You really think Chara was skating along one day and thought to himself "I'm going to ing kill Pacciority. I'm just going to straight up murder him"? What Chara did was an honest accident.
What Rome did is the same as a hundred other hits it just turned out very badly for Horton because he was admiring his pass.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:
What do you even mean by that? Like players don't hit others directly from in front?
How many head-on checks have you seen since ~98?
KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Of the top of my head look up Willie Mitchel's completely legal hit on Toews.
He went to hearing because he threw his elbow, so it was of debatable legality.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Let's see what else: How about Scott Stevens entire career.
Hip checks aren't head shots. The hip and the head are different parts of the body, you know.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Since you don't think it's possible for any hit to at least not be from the lateral I could see how you could come to that conclusion
No, that isn't what I said. Please read what is written.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Neither does Rome. So I guess he's innocent too? No, it doesn't matter.
Again, not what I said. Please read what is written.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:
You really think Chara was skating along one day and thought to himself "I'm going to ing kill Pacciority. I'm just going to straight up murder him"?
No, but he didn't actually try to murder him, he tried to run his head into a partition.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:
What Chara did was an honest accident.What Rome did is the same as a hundred other hits it just turned out very badly for Horton because he was admiring his pass.
No, only an incompetent fool who had never actually played a game of hockey, or any other sport would say something like this.
Just so there's no confusion a blind side is the part where someone's vision is obscured or is outside their peripheral vision, therefore a hit that you don't see coming would be considered a blind side. Also it seems
Horton is doing reasonably well no paralysis at least, Rome might get suspended for a game (I think he should get something harsher though). Also the reason the Canucks were acting vicious towards the Bruins
in the first two games was the Bruins were trying to antagonize them hoping to get a lot of power plays.
The hit was illegal. Rome "launched" which IS against the current rules. He could have made just as effetive a check without leaving the ice. If you watch his legs before the hit you can see him crouching and then puching upwards with both feet, both of his legs are dead straight at the moment of impact. That is what they will be looking at this morning when they decide his future.
My guess, Rome gets a 2 game suspension and a hefty fine.
Horton is as much at fault here as well for not looking up after the pass but the league will be looking at the launch.
Hate to say it, but Dave Schultz could not play in the current league. Those days are far in the past.
Horton will miss the rest of the series it was reported this morning.
If the warranted suspension doesn't accomplish the same I call for open season on the Sedins, Burrows, even Luongo and hope to see a cross check to the face ending a Canuck's season early in game three...
KamikazeCanuck wrote:
What do you even mean by that? Like players don't hit others directly from in front?
How many head-on checks have you seen since ~98?
KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Of the top of my head look up Willie Mitchel's completely legal hit on Toews.
He went to hearing because he threw his elbow, so it was of debatable legality.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Let's see what else: How about Scott Stevens entire career.
Hip checks aren't head shots. The hip and the head are different parts of the body, you know.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Since you don't think it's possible for any hit to at least not be from the lateral I could see how you could come to that conclusion
No, that isn't what I said. Please read what is written.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Neither does Rome. So I guess he's innocent too? No, it doesn't matter.
Again, not what I said. Please read what is written.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:
You really think Chara was skating along one day and thought to himself "I'm going to ing kill Pacciority. I'm just going to straight up murder him"?
No, but he didn't actually try to murder him, he tried to run his head into a partition.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:
What Chara did was an honest accident.What Rome did is the same as a hundred other hits it just turned out very badly for Horton because he was admiring his pass.
No, only an incompetent fool who had never actually played a game of hockey, or any other sport would say something like this.
Ok guy, you're a real tough guy on the other side of the internet, I get it. Apparently, childish name-calling is now allowed on Dakka so I'll guess with Poo-Head. You sir are a Poo-Head.... and let's go with Stupid-Face.
I was shocked he got more than a game suspension to be honest.
However, trading Rome for Horton isn't a fair trade. Rome is a nobody. Horton has been one of our most productive scorers.
The canucks still owe us a body sitting out: I think one of the flopping Sedins are due for an early vacation, and I'm pretty sure Thornton has Burrows penciled in on his dance card...
I like how everybody is crying "How will the Bruins do without Horton? He is one of their best scorers..." After they dropped 8 goals on Vancouver following his leaving the game.
And If I read correctly, Rome's suspension carries over to next season if this series ends before game 7.
Automatically Appended Next Post: This is from the Box scores from game 3. All this was in the third...... Game 4 is either going to be a brawl, or one of the dullest games ever.
2:50 Boston roughing - 2 min M. Ryder drawn by A. Alberts
3:33 Boston unsportsmanlike conduct - 2 min Z. Chara drawn by A. Burrows
3:33 Vancouver unsportsmanlike conduct - 2 min A. Burrows drawn by Z. Chara
6:59 Boston misconduct - 10 min A. Ference drawn by D. Sedin
6:59 Vancouver misconduct - 10 min D. Sedin drawn by A. Ference
7:58 Boston roughing - 2 min S. Thornton drawn by R. Kesler served by M. Ryder
7:58 Boston misconduct - 10 min S. Thornton
9:11 Vancouver boarding - 2 min R. Kesler drawn by D. Paille
11:16 Vancouver slashing - 2 min A. Burrows drawn by M. Lucic
11:16 Vancouver misconduct - 10 min A. Burrows
11:16 Vancouver fighting - 5 min R. Kesler drawn by D. Seidenberg
11:16 Vancouver misconduct - 10 min R. Kesler
11:16 Boston slashing - 2 min M. Lucic drawn by A. Burrows served by M. Ryder
11:16 Boston roughing - 2 min M. Lucic drawn by A. Burrows
11:16 Boston misconduct - 10 min M. Lucic
11:16 Boston fighting - 5 min D. Seidenberg drawn by R. Kesler
11:16 Boston misconduct - 10 min D. Seidenberg drawn by R. Kesler
17:51 Boston misconduct - 10 min A. Ference
17:51 Vancouver misconduct - 10 min K. Bieksa
18:53 Vancouver charging - 2 min R. Torres drawn by J. Boychuk
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Dogma don't be a dick. You don't know what "Vancouver" broadcasters said. And apparently you play women's hockey because hits to the head are legal and always have. I don't know why anyone would think otherwise. Wait I do, that stupid rule 48 that was instituted about a year ago. Except it doesn't make headshots illegal it makes blindside hits illegal. Now are really saying your coaches and teammates tell you to skate with your head down and admire all your passes? That's some great advice your getting.
Read the Rulebook before you start talking out of your bunghole.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Dogma don't be a dick. You don't know what "Vancouver" broadcasters said. And apparently you play women's hockey because hits to the head are legal and always have. I don't know why anyone would think otherwise. Wait I do, that stupid rule 48 that was instituted about a year ago. Except it doesn't make headshots illegal it makes blindside hits illegal.
Now are really saying your coaches and teammates tell you to skate with your head down and admire all your passes? That's some great advice your getting.
Read the Rulebook before you start talking out of your bunghole.
Rule 48, clearly defines hits to the head as ILLEGAL. Rule 48 - Illegal Check to the Head.
We've covered that. Dogma posted the full text which I pointed out says its the blindside that is illegal. You haven't made a new point. Thank God there's a game today so we can have a new controversy to talk about.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Dogma don't be a dick. You don't know what "Vancouver" broadcasters said. And apparently you play women's hockey because hits to the head are legal and always have. I don't know why anyone would think otherwise. Wait I do, that stupid rule 48 that was instituted about a year ago. Except it doesn't make headshots illegal it makes blindside hits illegal.
Now are really saying your coaches and teammates tell you to skate with your head down and admire all your passes? That's some great advice your getting.
Read the Rulebook before you start talking out of your bunghole.
Rule 48, clearly defines hits to the head as ILLEGAL. Rule 48 - Illegal Check to the Head.
We've covered that. Dogma posted the full text which I pointed out says its the blindside that is illegal. You haven't made a new point. Thank God there's a game today so we can have a new controversy to talk about.
Alright, I strongly disapprove of what Aaron Rome did. And despite being a Vancouver fan, I agree that he should sit this series out for it. Probably even pay a hefty fine. But people seem quick to forget Boston's own 'less-than-wholesome' track record of loving to put out dirty hits by the dozen. I see a lot of hockey hypocrisy occurring over the last couple pages. Must be the interweb acting up again.
Well I said what seems like a hundred years ago that you can't go wrong being pessimistic about the Canucks. This is currently their 2nd best season ever and perhaps that's all it'll ever be.
They say you're not really losing till you lose at home so I guess in a way neither team is losing yet...
In other news, the NHL announced today in order to make the game safer they are changing rule 48 to make head shots illegal. Effective next year.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:In other news, the NHL announced today in order to make the game safer they are changing rule 48 to make head shots illegal. Effective next year.
Man, Chara and Rome are both going to be bummed about that one...
Add: And Raffi Torres. Let's put him in there too. Because he looks like a Chihuahua
metallifan wrote:And despite being a Vancouver fan
I'm sorry. Did you lose a bet or something?
I don't get it.
Having to publicly admit you like Vancouver is sort of embarrassing...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
helgrenze wrote:Another penalty loaded 3rd..... If this keeps up there is gonna be a bench clearer by game 6.
The canucks thought they wanted to play smash-mouth and tried to come out and dominate the Bruins by biting and blindsiding them into submission, but they made a big mistake because they aren't very good at it...
Maybe the vancouver coach can spend today crying to the media again. That really seemed to be effective...
Or he could focus on teaching his players not to start something they can't finish.
Sedin looks like he wanted to call his mommy and ask her to come get him...
Yeah, they certainly weren't ready for that new rule where your allowed to slash the Sedins achilles every shift. Coach AV needs to find some counter strategy for that one. Kevlar reverse shin-guards perhaps?
I was just glad to see Timmy Thomas sticking up for himself with a hack to that punk Burrows' knee after he got it slashed out of his hand by Burrows a few seconds earlier.
I just wish he would've beaten the crap out of him instead of backing off of Burrows when the refs got in there. Maybe drop an elbow or two to the back of the head.
Dirtiest team I've ever seen. The reason the Chicago series turned around is that they started to get dirty. It's true, Canucks can't handle bull and that's how you win in the playoffs. Gillis paid a big fine to make the refs do their job but that well is dry now. He can't pull another rabbbit out of his hat.
Less embarassing than having to admit you cheer for a team like Boston, whose strength lies more in dirty play than actual skill.
Yes, because a team of biting, blindsiding crybabies led by a whiny coach is so admirable...
Lets not forget who started the foolishness in this series and then bragged about it and mocked the other team in pre-game videos and on the ice. IF Burrows had of been properly sanctioned and he and his teammates didn't act like a bunch of asses about getting away with being a cannibal then the series most likely would not have gone this way. The blindside meant to injure was icing on the cake...
Don't start a war you aren't prepared to finish, and certainly don't act like a bunch of jackasses who think your funny because you escaped punishment.
Less embarassing than having to admit you cheer for a team like Boston, whose strength lies more in dirty play than actual skill.
Yes, because a team of biting, blindsiding crybabies led by a whiny coach is so admirable...
Lets not forget who started the foolishness in this series and then bragged about it and mocked the other team in pre-game videos and on the ice. IF Burrows had of been properly sanctioned and he and his teammates didn't act like a bunch of asses about getting away with being a cannibal then the series most likely would not have gone this way. The blindside meant to injure was icing on the cake...
Don't start a war you aren't prepared to finish, and certainly don't act like a bunch of jackasses who think your funny because you escaped punishment.
karma is a bitch...
Oh please, the biting. Boston started it when their guy two-handed Bieksa in the Achilles tendon. That actually is intent to injure.
Still on about the bite in game one (or was that 2?) Really?
Go back and look at the replays... It was incedental. The Boston player was shoving his hands in Burrows face even with the ref in there.
Now loook at the box scores for the third period in the last two games....... Both teams are itching for a bench clearing brawl.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Oh please, the biting. Boston started it when their guy two-handed Bieksa in the Achilles tendon. That actually is intent to injure.
helgrenze wrote:Still on about the bite in game one (or was that 2?) Really?
Go back and look at the replays... It was incedental. The Boston player was shoving his hands in Burrows face even with the ref in there.
Now loook at the box scores for the third period in the last two games....... Both teams are itching for a bench clearing brawl.
Yes, when Bergeron was comically running around showing his finger to everyone the ref said "Well, don't stick your finger in his mouth".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Oh please, the biting. Boston started it when their guy two-handed Bieksa in the Achilles tendon. That actually is intent to injure.
Yet jumping at your opponent's head is not?
If we can stay non-personal Dogma I will reply with:
The League determined that
1) It was not a blindside hit
2) It was not a headshot. A headshot being defined by the NHL as a hit targeting and stiking the head first.
3) It was not charging. Specifically the part about charging regarding leaving your feet. His backfoot came up because he lost his balance after delivering a a devestating hit.
4) It WAS late. Apparently you are allowed "about" 0.5 seconds to hit a guy after he touches the puck and Rome was exactly .96 seconds after. (Even though everytime a D-Man goes back to clear a dump-in he gets hit like closer to 2 seconds after).
After consulting Brian Burke, Vancouver's most bitter man, and the man whose son actually plays for the Bruins they decided its definately fair to give an unprecedented longest suspension ever in the history of the Stanley Cup Finals.
Peverly didn'y even get 2 minutes. That's even less than than Chara got for breaking a guys neck.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:
1) It was not a blindside hit
Not seeing any declaration of that.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:
2) It was not a headshot. A headshot being defined by the NHL as a hit targeting and stiking the head first.
Well, no, that's not what rule 48 says. The head cannot be the principal point of contact, or the targeted part of the body, of a hit from the blind side (distinct from a check from behind), or the side. Additionally, Mike Murphy said:
"I thought that the body was contacted. But I also thought that the head was hit. It caused a serious injury to Nathan Horton."
So it isn't clear what the league really thought of the hit, but its important to note that, as had been said in this thread, head shots are being further regulated next season, and that the NHL is being diplomatic in the lead on to a new CBA.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:
3) It was not charging. Specifically the part about charging regarding leaving your feet. His backfoot came up because he lost his balance after delivering a a devestating hit.
Both of his feet came off the ice, very obviously so. He didn't lose his balance, he skated away in a smooth motion, and very obviously jumped. You can see his front leg coil as he skates into Horton.
There is no reason to jump through a check, except to target a different part of the body than you would otherwise. More force is imparted by skating through a check than jumping through one. I say this as a person who used to do similar things on the ice, and has done a stint at strong safety, which is basically a "hit those fools" job in a roaming 3-4.
I see nothing about the NHL saying that it was not charging, and even if they did, they would be wrong.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:
4) It WAS late. Apparently you are allowed "about" 0.5 seconds to hit a guy after he touches the puck and Rome was exactly .96 seconds after. (Even though everytime a D-Man goes back to clear a dump-in he gets hit like closer to 2 seconds after).
Bad, or "playoff" officiating (as it is usually called) is often countered by the officials calling something correctly and the league heaping on a suspension.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:
After consulting Brian Burke, Vancouver's most bitter man, and the man whose son actually plays for the Bruins they decided its definately fair to give an unprecedented longest suspension ever in the history of the Stanley Cup Finals.
Peverly didn'y even get 2 minutes. That's even less than than Chara got for breaking a guys neck.
Again, bad officiating, and the NHL being unwilling to do what is necessary because they like the ratings, and "UFC fan" bleed-over effect.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:
1) It was not a blindside hit
Not seeing any declaration of that.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:
2) It was not a headshot. A headshot being defined by the NHL as a hit targeting and stiking the head first.
Well, no, that's not what rule 48 says. The head cannot be the principal point of contact, or the targeted part of the body, of a hit from the blind side (distinct from a check from behind), or the side. Additionally, Mike Murphy said:
"I thought that the body was contacted. But I also thought that the head was hit. It caused a serious injury to Nathan Horton."
So it isn't clear what the league really thought of the hit, but its important to note that, as had been said in this thread, head shots are being further regulated next season, and that the NHL is being diplomatic in the lead on to a new CBA.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:
3) It was not charging. Specifically the part about charging regarding leaving your feet. His backfoot came up because he lost his balance after delivering a a devestating hit.
Both of his feet came off the ice, very obviously so. He didn't lose his balance, he skated away in a smooth motion, and very obviously jumped. You can see his front leg coil as he skates into Horton.
There is no reason to jump through a check, except to target a different part of the body than you would otherwise. More force is imparted by skating through a check than jumping through one. I say this as a person who used to do similar things on the ice, and has done a stint at strong safety, which is basically a "hit those fools" job in a roaming 3-4.
I see nothing about the NHL saying that it was not charging, and even if they did, they would be wrong.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:
4) It WAS late. Apparently you are allowed "about" 0.5 seconds to hit a guy after he touches the puck and Rome was exactly .96 seconds after. (Even though everytime a D-Man goes back to clear a dump-in he gets hit like closer to 2 seconds after).
Bad, or "playoff" officiating (as it is usually called) is often countered by the officials calling something correctly and the league heaping on a suspension.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:
After consulting Brian Burke, Vancouver's most bitter man, and the man whose son actually plays for the Bruins they decided its definately fair to give an unprecedented longest suspension ever in the history of the Stanley Cup Finals.
Peverly didn'y even get 2 minutes. That's even less than than Chara got for breaking a guys neck.
Again, bad officiating, and the NHL being unwilling to do what is necessary because they like the ratings, and "UFC fan" bleed-over effect.
Yes, that's the article I quoted from. The NHL said nothing like what you said in your previous post. You are drawing the conclusions you want to, not the ones which are necessary.
Either way, you haven't responded to my specific claims about charging, officiating, or the head shot.
dogma wrote:Yes, that's the article I quoted from. The NHL said nothing like what you said in your previous post. You are drawing the conclusions you want to, not the ones which are necessary.
Either way, you haven't responded to my specific claims about charging, officiating, or the head shot.
metallifan wrote:And get off your highhorse about the bite, CT.
Ken Linseman bit Lee Fogolin in 84. Bruins say what?
Seriously, at least make an -effort-.
Soyou are justifying Burrows actions based upon an event that happened in 1984?
Biting was wrong in 1984 and it is wrong now. so unless you can find a quote in which I defended Linesman's actions then you fail at following along and making relevant arguments.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KamikazeCanuck wrote:
CT GAMER wrote:
KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Oh my God. We're done here.
I think that is what the canucks coach said after last night as well...
Some of the headlines around town:
"Troubles a Bruin"
"Beantown Meltdown"
and of course just "Mauled"
There's like a dozen more but I can't remember them all.
CT GAMER wrote:
Soyou are justifying Burrows actions based upon an event that happened in 1984?
Biting was wrong in 1984 and it is wrong now. so unless you can find a quote in which I defended Linesman's actions then you fail at following along and making relevant arguments.
When did I ever say it was justified? I told you to stop making stupid posts and then acting high and mighty. Burrows wasn't the first guy to bite, and your beloved Boston did it well before he did, contrary to what you previously thought. Now quit wasting thread space with ignorant posts. Seriously. You're embarrassing yourself and everyone else in here.
Now, unless you can find a quote in which I defended Burrows' actions then you fail at following along and making relevant arguments.
metallifan wrote:And get off your highhorse about the bite, CT.
Ken Linseman bit Lee Fogolin in 84. Bruins say what?
Seriously, at least make an -effort-.
Soyou are justifying Burrows actions based upon an event that happened in 1984?
Biting was wrong in 1984 and it is wrong now. so unless you can find a quote in which I defended Linesman's actions then you fail at following along and making relevant arguments.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KamikazeCanuck wrote:
CT GAMER wrote:
KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Oh my God. We're done here.
I think that is what the canucks coach said after last night as well...
Some of the headlines around town:
"Troubles a Bruin"
"Beantown Meltdown"
and of course just "Mauled"
There's like a dozen more but I can't remember them all.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Yeah, Dogma that's must be what I'm saying because you've contructed a sentence I've never typed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman
No, it wasn't a strawman. The word "if" does wondrous things when used correctly.
I merely used an oblique, and admittedly rhetorical, method to question what it is you meant. Though, quite honestly, it seems as though there are not very many interpretations of your meaning regarding that particular post.
I said:
North-South doesn't mean "That was not a blind-side hit."
You said:
Oh my God. We're done here.
It would not be beyond the pale to assume you meant "Not North-South does mean not a blind-side hit."
I was well aware of the event before you brought it up. The guy who did it then was a moron and and so is Burrows. What is the point of bringing it up and claiming he isn't the first to do it?
CT GAMER wrote:Yes, because a team of biting, blindsiding crybabies led by a whiny coach is so admirable...
I never brought it up. I just responded. I suggest let's not reopen that can of worms. I could go all day on the back-and-forth of it, but it's really done and passed. I'm having a lot of fun with that picture, and I'd like to leave it there.
CT GAMER wrote:Also here is Luongo's replacement for game five:
Even if he just stands dead still in the crease he is bound to make more saves then Luongo...
No, see you get a sumo wrestler and just have him sit in front of the goal.
metallifan wrote:
That's right. That's how it -really- happened
Metallifan could you please stop "trolling"? Cheesecat is having his period and he is cranky...
Cheesecat try to at least follow along. the thread has shifted to amusing pics in an attempt to lighten the mood and move away from direct back and forth arguments so try not to be the one guy that can't keep up...
Silly Bruins, The Skates go on the ice, not your head!
if you see on the video where this still is from, a couple frames later, Hamuis gets squirted with water by one of the Bruins on the bench. Now that's some class, I mean, what kind of sportsmanship do you have to have to appreciate a good check by cooling off the checker??
metallifan wrote:
That's right. That's how it -really- happened
Metallifan could you please stop "trolling"? Cheesecat is having his period and he is cranky...
Cheesecat try to at least follow along. the thread has shifted to amusing pics in an attempt to lighten the mood and move away from direct back and forth arguments so try not to be the one guy that can't keep up...
That last pick is nice btw.
It's just sometimes hard on the internet to tell the difference between playful trash talking and flame wars, but it sounds like it's become the former over the latter which is a good thing.
Silly Bruins, The Skates go on the ice, not your head!
if you see on the video where this still is from, a couple frames later, Hamuis gets squirted with water by one of the Bruins on the bench. Now that's some class, I mean, what kind of sportsmanship do you have to have to appreciate a good check by cooling off the checker??
Hoo boy, if this goes to a do-or-die series, I'm getting highschool drunk. I haven't been that drunk since... well... highschool.
I'm also quite torn. On one side, I'm a Canuck. I want to see Van win so that one day I can bore my grandchildren with stories about how I watched Vancouver win its first Stanley Cup in its 41 year existence. But on the other hand, if Boston wins, Mark Recchi will bring the Stanley Cup back to Kamloops again, and there'll be a kickass party at Riverside park.
metallifan wrote:Hoo boy, if this goes to a do-or-die series, I'm getting highschool drunk. I haven't been that drunk since... well... highschool.
I'm also quite torn. On one side, I'm a Canuck. I want to see Van win so that one day I can bore my grandchildren with stories about how I watched Vancouver win its first Stanley Cup in its 41 year existence. But on the other hand, if Boston wins, Mark Recchi will bring the Stanley Cup back to Kamloops again, and there'll be a kickass party at Riverside park.
DAMN YOU HOCKEY GODS! *Shakes fists*
Jesus! Just come to Vancouver! Looks like like a homer series all the way. Can't believe that frikkin' EA Sports simulation is coming true.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh and Boston cheated by using witchcraft. They brought out #8 Cam Neely to wave a Horton flag and scored 8 goals then brought out #4 Bobby Orr to wave the flag and they scored 4 goals. I fully expect to see #77 Ray Bourque waving that damn flag next game.
Hmm which is better, Van winning its first cup after 41 years..... Or a 43 year old winning .. probably... his last?
I kinda really wanna see Recchi go out on a win.. y'know?
metallifan wrote:Hoo boy, if this goes to a do-or-die series, I'm getting highschool drunk. I haven't been that drunk since... well... highschool.
I'm also quite torn. On one side, I'm a Canuck. I want to see Van win so that one day I can bore my grandchildren with stories about how I watched Vancouver win its first Stanley Cup in its 41 year existence. But on the other hand, if Boston wins, Mark Recchi will bring the Stanley Cup back to Kamloops again, and there'll be a kickass party at Riverside park.
DAMN YOU HOCKEY GODS! *Shakes fists*
Jesus! Just come to Vancouver! Looks like like a homer series all the way. Can't believe that frikkin' EA Sports simulation is coming true.
You miss the point. I'm still cheering for Vancouver because I think they deserve the damn thing to be served up with a side of 'Tim' Bits , and Recchi -has- already brought the cup back in 06, but I won't complain if the local boy takes the thing home once more.
metallifan wrote:Hoo boy, if this goes to a do-or-die series, I'm getting highschool drunk. I haven't been that drunk since... well... highschool.
I'm also quite torn. On one side, I'm a Canuck. I want to see Van win so that one day I can bore my grandchildren with stories about how I watched Vancouver win its first Stanley Cup in its 41 year existence. But on the other hand, if Boston wins, Mark Recchi will bring the Stanley Cup back to Kamloops again, and there'll be a kickass party at Riverside park.
DAMN YOU HOCKEY GODS! *Shakes fists*
Jesus! Just come to Vancouver! Looks like like a homer series all the way. Can't believe that frikkin' EA Sports simulation is coming true.
You miss the point. I'm still cheering for Vancouver because I think they deserve the damn thing to be served up with a side of 'Tim' Bits , and Recchi -has- already brought the cup back in 06, but I won't complain if the local boy takes the thing home once more.
Plus it would be nice to see a Canadian team win for once.
I have been pulling for the Bs since they were up against the Habs. As much as I don't want Vancouver to win, I reckon the cup is as good as theirs. The Bs dominate in Boston, but the Canucks get too much of a psychic push playing at home and, let's face it, Boston has to win game 7 in Van to win the cup.
That said, I've been sitting on top of this Canucks Troll video since round one and was hoping to use it after the Blah Kawks came back and thwarted the Cannots in the first series. Nope. Then there were the Preds. Even the Oilers could've beaten the Preds. Then I thought maybe the Sharks would actually stop sucking long enough to win the Campbell Conference Trophy. Nah. Unfortunately, the Canucks look like they are going to win (FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQ! ) so I wanted to post this as it will be the last chance (I figure the Bs are going to stomp the guts out of Van in game 6 with the Canucks winning game 7 with a low scoring game)
Enjoy the victory party, boys. Grab some bud. Slam a few Kokanees. Nail some girl you don't know. Enjoy it I know I won't. lol
Your team is great, it's just that ALL THE FANS ARE SUPER LAME!lol
You should photoshop a puck in the net behind Luongo in that pic...
I'm not going to predict the outcome of tonight's game because with two periods left anything could still happen, however maybe Luongo should spend less time trash talking the opposing goalies style to the media (when he isn't slicking that disgusting greasy mop back) and actually practice stopping pucks... I'm just sayin
Someone should have also told the canucks management/coach that the series wasn't over yet, and that maybe they shouldn't try to publicly plan the victory celebration just yet because it makes you look like a giant douche
Princess Sedin standing wide eyed with fear while Marchand humiliates him. The only reason he didn't flop down like usual is because Marchand had a hold of him...
I won't lie, 98% of why I don't like the Canucks is the Sedins. The other 2% is their media, my God do they ever search for reasons to criticize the players that give them jobs.
The Sedins are fine -when they're actually scoring. As for the media, CBC isn't bad, they have their opinions and they stick to them instead of changing their tune to suit the status of the game. Not like Sportsnet Pacific. Those jokes of sportscasters will kiss the bare arse of every Canuck when they're winning, but as soon as they fall behind by even a goal, it's "All hope is lost, the Canucks always do this! I know there are nearly 3 periods left still, and that it's just one goal, but forget it it's over! Bawww"
I would seriously raegquit hockey forever if they became the only source for my Canucks fix.
metallifan wrote:The Sedins are fine -when they're actually scoring.
Hence the commentary on the first series.
metallifan wrote:
As for the media, CBC isn't bad, they have their opinions and they stick to them instead of changing their tune to suit the status of the game.
That's part of my problem with certain journalists there, they have opinion X of guy Y and nothing can change it. Very close minded. The rest seem to sing praises of certain guys at certain times, and preach their sins other times. Obviously this happens in sports journalism everywhere, but it seems to happen in Van a lot more often. Extending beyond hockey, and including it: It's also true of NY, was true of Chicago in the 90's (now they're all very rah-rah), Philadelphia (oh God, the McNabb/Pronger noise!), Pittsburgh (everyong hates Crosby for some reason), and Oakland (it is Oakland!).
metallifan wrote:
Not like Sportsnet Pacific. Those jokes of sportscasters will kiss the bare arse of every Canuck when they're winning, but as soon as they fall behind by even a goal, it's "All hope is lost, the Canucks always do this! I know there are nearly 3 periods left still, and that it's just one goal, but forget it it's over! Bawww"
Maybe CBC is not who I'm thinking of, its hard to tell here as often times the Canadian feed is rebroadcast by someone else. And, let's be honest, I drink when I watch hockey!
Not surprised, it seems to be a close win for Vancouver at home and an absolute thrashing when away. So my prediction is a close win at game 7 for canucks.
The canucks have statistics/history with them for game seven as they have managed to win at home and Luongo has played well at home.
So for location I give them the advantage.
However they have barely squeaked out wins at home and never dominated the Bruins, so I think the pressure is on them (particularly Luongo) and it is their game to lose...
dogma wrote:Maybe CBC is not who I'm thinking of, its hard to tell here as often times the Canadian feed is rebroadcast by someone else. And, let's be honest, I drink when I watch hockey!
Yea definately sounds like Sportsnet Pacific out of Vancouver. CBC sticks to their opinions unless they have good reason to change them. SNP on the other hand praises or critiques depending on performance, which is megalame. Plus, I don't think CBC does international Broadcasts. I believe Versus and all those guys get their feed from Sportsnet because it's US owned.
And I would hope you're drinking. Because if not, then you're doing it horribly wrong and should be watching, like, Golf or something.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Bit of news on Mason Raymond's condition. Glad to hear that he'll be alright at least, that was an ugly, ugly position to hit the boards in. I thought he might have broken his back considering he wasn't able to move his legs. Fracture's still nasty, but at least he'll be mobile again.
Mason Raymond out at least three months
VANCOUVER - Forward Mason Raymond will miss Game 7 of the Stanley Cup final and could be sidelined for four months with a back injury, the Vancouver Canucks said Tuesday.
Raymond sustained a vertebrae compression fracture in Monday night's 5-2 loss to the Boston Bruins in Game 6 of the final, Mike Gillis, the Canucks' general manager, said in a release.
Raymond is expected to be out of the lineup for three to four months. No other details were provided.
The Canucks will face the Bruins in Game 7 of the Stanley Cup final Wednesday.
Raymond was hurt just 20 seconds into Monday's game when he got tangled up awkwardly with Bruins defenceman Johnny Boychuk. He was bent at the waist with Bodycheck's stick between his legs when Boychuk ran him backward into the boards near Boston's net.
No penalty was called.
Raymond lay face down on the ice for several minutes before his teammates helped him off. He wasn't moving his legs as his teammates guided him to the bench.
He was taken a local hospital for evaluation.
The 25-year-old from Cochrane, Alta., has two goals and eight assists in 24 playoff games. In 70 regular-season games the speedy forward had 15 goals and 24 assists.
Raymond joins a growing list of injured Canuck players.
Defenceman Dan Hamhuis is sidelined with an undisclosed injury, while Mikael Samuelsson is out after undergoing successful surgery to repair his adductor tendon and sports hernia.
Defenceman Aaron Rome was suspended for a hit on Boston's Nathan Horton in Game 3.
Horton was ruled out for the rest of the series with a concussion after the hit, but returned to TD Garden for Game 6 to rile the crowd up by waving one of the Bruins' yellow towels.
Vancouver centre Ryan Kesler and defenceman Christian Ehrhoff are playing with suspected injuries.
It's a fracture, not a true break. He should be fine as long as he avoids anything that might put a strain on his spine.
In any case, it looks like he'll be spending most of this summer in a bed. He'll probably have to wear one of those back casts too, for the odd times he's up and about. Bloody things are sent by the devil, I swear.
I won't be able to see the final...unless it goes to like quadruple overtime. Luongo is hot and cold. I have to agree with CT Gamer here that it's Van's game to lose. I reckon they'll win, but a couple of gakky bounces for them will have me posting that Canucks rap video again about 10 times. I've been looking for new ones too...just in case.
My prediction. Van 2 Bs 1. No scoring in the 3rd. Conn Smythe Thomas. Bettman justifiably booed the entire time he's got his sausage hole open. Don Cherry drunker than usual. Limited rioting in Vancouver.
My opinion of Don Cherry is sometimes mixed. Generally I don't mind Coaches Corner, but sometimes -he just goes off into f***ing nowhere-. Like when he starts talking about baseball or football. What the hell, Don? I'm here to watch a good old fashioned game of HOCKEY!
And sometimes his views on some events are just plain dumb. Overall though, he's pretty awesome and I try to make sure that I'm home in time from work to catch him after the first period.
EDIT: Also, I found these videos through the Johnny Canuck short film. They're just wild. If you've never sat and listened while a whole city starts to cheer, this is pretty damn amazing. The videos are actually from the Sharks series, but still, pretty cool to actually take in the scale of the reaction:
I don't know what else to say. The entire city is on a knife-edge. It's all everyone is talking about, thinking about, it's just everything.
Oh well, just going to try to be Zen and say what happens happens.
Marchand having another monster game: 10 playoff goals as a rookie!!! He is a little pit bull that scores. Love that guy.
Why the hell didn't the Canucks coach take his time out during that power play to rest his guys?
You have Chara in the box and your guys look winded. Dumb...
Can't believe he hasn't pulled Luongo, those last two goals were really soft...
Those white towels the canucks fans are waving are starting to have a double meaning...
Not sure if the canucks are going to get four past Thomas in one period, it will be pretty impressive if they do, but the Sedins might want to actually chip in...
I watched the first period until a few minutes before the score. In keeping with my earlier superstition, that goal was scored while I wasn't watching.
Well Boston, it was a hell of a ride - game for game the whole way. But you topped us when it truly counted.
I've been waiting for Vancouver to win it since 1994, but you guys have been waiting to win since '72. So enjoy your cup. You certainly earned it. It was an honour to do battle, and who knows? Maybe we'll square off again in 2012.
Till then, I say good game and goodbye beard (Which, by the way, totally clogged my bathroom sink - d'oh!)
CT GAMER wrote:Those white towels the canucks fans are waving are starting to have a double meaning...
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Whatever, no sour grapes. I'm a big believer that when you play a best 4 out of 7 the best team always wins.
it's not necessarily the best team that wins, but rather the team that has the right breaks go for them at the right time.
As bummed/pissed as I am about the outcome, I still have to give props and congratulations to the Bs (just not most of their fans, as I typically do not like boston sports fans)
Embarrassment? There could be no better set up than that.
Out of the three times I've seen Vancouver get to the finals, I have to say I really thought they were going to take it this time. They do have a really good team. Hopefully for their fans they won't go into some deep introspective hole like the Flames did after their last run to the Cup...which they actually did win in game 6.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Please don't even post that crap metallifan. It's an embarrassment.
Oh come on. Like you and everyone else that follows the sport didn't think that would happen. If you turned on any news channel between 7 and 9, it was all over the place.
You have a beautiful city; one to be proud of. Don't get down on it just because small little bits and pieces are on fire. There are total idiots like that in Boston too (although part of that is just jock jackasses from Boston's 100+ colleges and universities looking for an excuse).
Which is looking to be the case here as well. Reports of the individuals who started the first fires are that they carried backpacks and had gas masks, gloves, and what at least one person described as a "jerry can of gasoline".
Really rioters? You're going to splurge on GASOLINE?
Wish I had that kind of money to burn on getting all rioty.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Please don't even post that crap metallifan. It's an embarrassment.
Oh come on. Like you and everyone else that follows the sport didn't think that would happen. If you turned on any news channel between 7 and 9, it was all over the place.
You know man, I honestly didn't. I actually watched the game from the corner it started on and can't reconcile what's happening there now with what I saw. This has nothing to do with sports and people being angry. These are criminals who've made a conscience decision to riot and a lot of gawkers who think it funny.
It's not funny people who live downtown are having to flee their homes because of the tear gas. Mass transit is shut down and you must travel by foot. Looting is Rampant. People have been hurt badly. This is Vancouver's lowest moment. It seems liked we learned lessons from '94. It seemed like our young city had matured after the successful hosting of the world in the olympics and then this s---.
I really can't express how choked and embarressed all of us sane Vancouverites are. I'm sorry you guys, I'm really upset.
Roy Boy: I want to call the American embassy!
Boomer: All I said was "Canadian beer sucks!"
[riot intensifies]
Kabral: People! People! Can't we all just get along?
Quite frankly I think a large part of the blame in regards to the scale of the damage rests on the supposedly "prepared" Vancouver Police.
It's well known that dispersing a smattering of officers among large crowds won't do -anything- to stop it, and VPD Chief Jim Chu should know that. They should've had stronger police cordons around gathering areas, with roadblocks set up much closer to the events than they were. The riot teams were also late to arrive once again, as were the officers held in reserve. A tip to Mr. Chu: If you're going to claim that your police force is prepared for a riot, then they damn well better be prepared. A lot of people are scratching their heads and wondering how it still happened after you declared complete readiness.
Retraced my steps back to where I watched the game. At that spot the grounds a little black and well, it smells like someone burnt a car there. On Granville it seems at least they spared the small business owners focusing their looting efforts on the big corporations like HBC, Sears and London Drugs.
Near the CBC though they just went to town on everything in a display of sheer idiocy.
Despite that there was an army of volunteers and good samaritans cleaning up everything. The boards on the windows that needed them are being scrawled with messages of outrage and resentment at the hooligans mixed with expressions of love people have for their city. The sun was out and it was a beautiful day in still beautiful British Columbia.
metallifan wrote:Quite frankly I think a large part of the blame in regards to the scale of the damage rests on the supposedly "prepared" Vancouver Police.
Only problem is the odds against the Riot team is what? 1000 to 1 at least, theres no real way you can prevent much when crud like this happens without calling in the military
The riot team wasn't the issue, and you totally skipped over the rest of the post if that's all you took out of it.
- What I said was - that he should have cordoned off smaller areas and had a stronger presence on said cordon lines instead of sprinkling officers around a mass of fans, which has been proven to do jack all a number of times before in other riots. That was a complete waste of manpower. The riot team should've been much closer to the area than they were, and the reserve force should've been deployed before the game was over. Chu said that his police force was ready, and that was complete bull****. They weren't even -close- to ready, because of the mistakes he made in his strategy. Mistakes that he wouldn't have made if he would've actually taken a second look at his plan and realized how disasterously close it was to the epic failure of the VPD in 1994.
It wouldn't have stopped the riots, no. But they would've been much smaller, much easier to contain, and they would've dissipated sooner.
NRI Dist Bet: Canuck Fan Tattooed w/ Bruins Logo Posted On Jun 17 2011, 10:15 AM by asayer
Riots, riots, riots. Blah. Boring.
There are way more interesting stories behind the Stanley Cup Finals than Vancouver falling asleep for 4 games and a small percentage of it's residents destroying their own city. Yeah I'm talking about high stakes, opposing team tattoo action. Much more entertaining than cash exchanging hands; this act of shame is for life.
NRI Distribution is "the number one 3PL providing North American market access to the Outdoor, Lifestyle and Fashion industries." Basically, they distribute many of your favorite skate and snowboard brands across Canada and the staff are mostly there because they skate and snowboard. They also take their hockey very seriously, as you can see by "The Bet" between co-workers Jamie Meegan (Canuck supporter) and Ryan LeSage (Bruin's superfan), which left one of them with their most hated opponents logo permanently tattooed on their skin. Keep in mind this bet was made five years ago.
'The Bet' (as outlined on TWSBiz):
- Whichever of the Vancouver Canucks (Meegan’s Team) or the Boston Bruins (LeSage’s Team) wins the Stanley Cup next, the loser will tattoo the logo of the winning team on their body; basically the loser gets a tattoo of the team they hate the most. - Tattoo must be at least the size of a regulation NHL hockey puck (three inches in diameter). - Tattoo can be placed anywhere on the body but must be shown (in any social situation) at the request of the winner. - Tattoo will be completed within 48 hours of the conclusion of the Stanley Cup Final. - Winner of the bet pays for the loser’s tattoo. - Tattoo cannot ever be defaced in any way.
And like any proper bet, Jamie went through with it:
This friendly NRI-Distribution bet has been making some pretty big headlines with a piece up on Canucks.com, a video coming out soon on Joy Factory Films, as well as full coverage including a news video on Kamloops own CFJC TV.
Here was how it originally began:
"Two Kamloops residents and employees of NRI Distribution, Ryan LeSage (age 30), & Jamie Meegan (age 32) made a bet while sitting around the lunchroom table 5 years ago...
Ryan who is a die-hard Bruins fan and Jamie who is an insane Canucks supporter decided that whoever's team won the Stanley Cup next the other would get the logo of said team permanently tattooed on their body. Little did they know that things would play out this perfectly 5 years later."
Cheers to terrible/totally amazing tattoos. Probably the best kind.
ing kill Pacciority. I'm just going to straight up murder him"? What Chara did was an honest accident.
) so I wanted to post this as it will be the last chance (I figure the 
Personally I don't agree with a lot of his views, but I still find him hilarious to watch.
