2011 Stanley Cup Finals
- Started
- Last post
- 126 Responses
- eieio0
Anybody actually notice the Canucks lost 8-1 in the end ?
- Jaline0
haha, pretty bad, for sure. Bruins got momentum after the first couple of goals.
- ntslide0
I'm going to throw in a comment as a hockey player...
Put simply, you know what you're doing as you're doing it... There is no way a professional player didn't know he was going for the head, there is no way he wasn't trying to rip above mentioned head off...To say it wasn't malicious is a gross understatement from a players perspective. Sure he should have kept his head up, sure it was with the shoulder but bottom line is that you have to premeditate a hit like that. Even in the split seconds before the hit Rome had the chance (and ability) for it to be a body-to-body hit. He went for the head, and that's a cheapshot.
All this being said, I'm a boston fan, I love intensity, I don't like cheap shots like this because eventually the NHL will ban open-ice hits and they're a great part of the game... My rant is over...
- eieio0
You can't rip someone's head off with your shoulder. He was knocked out because he didn't see it coming and landed kerplunt on the ice. In other words Rome didn't cause the head injury the fall did.
- Mister20
Cheap shot no.
There is no such thing as accidental hit in hockey. You hit them regardless. Luck of the draw if you get caught or other guy is prepared for it.
- Mister20
Now having said all this
Both teams are out one player.
Its all good in hockey.
- Fanco0
my turn to throw in a comment as a hockey player.
his hit was legal and illegal. it was NOT a head shot. it's illegal because it'S late, very very late. he should've stopped. but horton should've had his head up instead of watching his pass.
but this malarkey about that hit being a headshot and him jumping and aiming for his head is over the top. when a player jumps before a hit. it's painfully obvious and he would've received a much harsher penalty other than interference. as for the perceived elbow to the head. hell no. when you hit. you throw out your arms. conscious or not. horton's position was leaning forward and you can plainly see that rome crouches a bit before the hit. the best way to avoid exactly head contact to the elbow. it might of hit the shoulder pads, but that is not a headshot. this is another problem that many people have been calling for : take out the hard plastic from the shoulder pads and bring back the softer shoulder pads.
I'm a defenseman and i hit players in front of the net/along the boards all the time and in open ice situations just like that hit right there. when you DO hit a player. any momentum you have will stop, naturally all energy spent towards him lifts you up a bit. look at any other hit in that game and you'll see that pattern all the time. you're argument about jumping up is all bull. so drop it.
- pastpastdue0
Yeah, I don't think anyone should see this as anything but a late hit. I too have played hockey for almost 20 years now (most as a goalie, but who's counting!)
Horton didn't see him coming. He was hit late, but any sooner would have had the same repercussions, no? He got knocked the fudge out and would have been had it happened .5 seconds sooner because he wasn't looking.
- aldebaran0
"when you DO hit a player. any momentum you have will stop, naturally all energy spent towards him lifts you up a bit. look at any other hit in that game and you'll see that pattern all the time. you're argument about jumping up is all bull. so drop it. "
oh bullshit. watch the animation and tell me that he wasn't about to jump.
- Fanco0
sigh...
just look at this video. look at all of those with any kind of momentum. what do you see?
- @ 0:21Fanco
- @ 0:28Fanco
- @ 0:43
etc. etc. etc.Fanco - uh not even close to the same thing...aldebaran
- i see feet getting off the ground. isnt that what you've been arguing about...Fanco
- What were talking about is the jumping motion. Not the fact that they end up in the air.aldebaran
- Two different things with similar results.aldebaran
- Not even close. And if you can't tell the difference get the fuck off the ice before you kill somebody asshole.sigg
- Nice. Classy. You must be one of those players with an anger management issues.Fanco
- OP310
oldie but goodie. This is a headshot. Best part of the vid is at 1:16 when they drop the stretcher haha
- eieio0
On another note couldn't that Thomas hit be considered interference or something? I'm glad they didn't call anything because it was entertaining but still, I figure in another game it would be called.
- learn the rules....aldebaran
- if you have the puck you can be hit. if you don't then you can't be hit. It's easy.aldebaran
- sedin didn't really have the puck he was trying to bring down on the iceeieio
- he was also inside his creaseeieio
- I think inside the crease means totally off limits for hitting or being hit as a goalieeieio
- in the video sedin was a split second too slow from getting the shot off. He had possession of the puckOP31
- still inside the creaseeieio
- he wasn't going to shoot either he was grabbing it out the aireieio
- if he is in the crease more of a reason to hit himOP31
- but its a penalty.eieio
- its not a penaltyOP31
- pastpastdue0
I loved Tim Thomas's hit. Thought it was great and timely. A goalie is allowed to hit, just as any other player is allowed to. You can also hit the goalie should he leave the crease. Technically, you can hit a goalie in the crease should there be some crazy circumstance where he is handling the puck, but you can't hit him if he is trying to make a save, get position, etc. thus, goalie interference.
The crease exists to provide sanctity for a goalie to make saves. It's not like you don't see players chopping at goalies when they are covering the puck. The only thing outlined in any rulebook is using it as an area to define what constitutes as preventing goaltenders from making saves around the net. What I would say is, try to find anything in the NHL rule book that defines what Thomas did as illegal.
It's not interference because Sedin had possession of the puck. He is attempting to handle it. To say he didn't really have possession of the puck is off. He was trying to drop it down to his stick to handle it. You don't have to have the puck to get hit, regardless. How many times in a game do players sacrifice their body to make the right pass? Tons, and usually, when they get hit, it is right after they get rid of the puck.
- C'mon, cut me a break. I'm a hockey nerd and also used to be a referee.pastpastdue
- you can't hit a goalie in the crease OR out.eegrek
- pastpastdue0
"It's not like you don't see players chopping at goalies when they are covering the puck." I guess I could restate this better. You can get a slashing penalty as a goalie when you are in the crease, just as a player can get a penalty for slashing the goalie in the crease, inside or out. Every other rule applies the same, the only difference is that goaltender interference changes the stipulation, because most time, if you hit a goalie, he's trying to make a save. You could also hold a goalie and drag him out of the crease - you wouldn't get a holding penalty, you'd get a goaltender interference penalty.
- Melanie0
Can't wait for the next game! Canucks to win.
- chris_himself0
Can't wait for the next game! Bruins to win.