Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/06/08 23:22:26
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.
Another penalty loaded 3rd..... If this keeps up there is gonna be a bench clearer by game 6.
Of all the races of the universe the Squats have the longest memories and the shortest tempers. They are uncouth, unpredictably violent, and frequently drunk. Overall, I'm glad they're on our side!
Office of Naval Intelligence Research discovers 3 out of 4 sailors make up 75% of U.S. Navy.
"Madness is like gravity... All you need is a little push."
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
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/06/09 05:03:37
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...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/06/09 10:55:03
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?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/06/09 16:10:54
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.
karma is a bitch...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/06/09 19:13:17
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.
Of all the races of the universe the Squats have the longest memories and the shortest tempers. They are uncouth, unpredictably violent, and frequently drunk. Overall, I'm glad they're on our side!
Office of Naval Intelligence Research discovers 3 out of 4 sailors make up 75% of U.S. Navy.
"Madness is like gravity... All you need is a little push."
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?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/06/09 20:24:25
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/06/09 20:43:12
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.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
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.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
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.
I prefer this one: "H. Sedin still a b****"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/06/09 22:01:43
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/06/09 22:09:43
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.
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.
