• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

SylenT

Hasek Challenges, Gaborik goes Airborn

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

asdfasdfasdfasdfasdf

All I'm trying to say here, is Hasek didn't have to take out Gabby.

I could just as easily say Gaborik didn't have to run Dom.

Again, I'm as hard on Dom as the next guy, but he shouldn't be blamed for this. If anyone should be faulted for the way it turned out, it's Gaborik; Dom did what goalies have been doing for ages in that situation, whereas Gaborik made a rookie mistake in barreling down with his eyes on the puck. Had he simply kept his eyes on Dom, he wouldn't have gone flying (he might have even scored), and everyone would see Dom's move for what it was: an uncommon but perfectly legal way of challenging a breakaway. That Dom was called for a penalty is not proof that it wasn't a perfectly legal play. I can't believe you're playing that card.

If this discussion is going to continue, can we at least get a well-reasoned argument against Dom's move that goes beyond "He totally took him out!"?

Edited by Dabura

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just watch the other clips of when Hasek has done this (last year against Rick Nash comes to mind), and you will see what happens to a play like this when the player has his head up. If Gaborik would have gotten hurt, ya it would have been bad news, but it still would have been a freak accident. Skating with your head up is pretty much rule #1 in hockey, especially when your the fastest skater in the NHL (Gabby).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DetroitIan

You can cleary see on the replay that Dom was trying to go for the save. Not to cause an injury to Gaborik. In fact, anyone who thinks Dom was trying to injure Gaborik is either totally blind, or just ignorant. It's pretty obvious that Hasek was just trying to do his job. Not to mention, if he did intend to injure, im sure the NHL would have considered a suspension of some sort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised it wasn't reported that Sydney Crosby would've landed on his feet and scored the empty netter.

...But not before offering salvation and absolution of sins to all in the arena. Hail Crosby!

Seriously, though, I can't believe this is still being debated. And let's not forget that Jacques Lemaire is the man who popularized the Trap. :sly: He is not a good man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First clip is perfectly relevant. No, you don't him skating out, but you see him way out of his goal sliding at the puck in the same fashion as he did to Gaborik, without taking out the player. Did you really have to see him skate out to know that he actually skated?

Second clip shows how when the player doesn't have control of the puck (is trying to catch up to it) that Hasek has no problem doing a normal poke check. But obviously when the player has full control (the other clips as well as on Friday) Hasek will spread his body out to ensure the player doesn't try to flip the puck past him.

Again, third clips makes my point, he didn't take out the skater because the puck was to the side of the skater and Hasek always dives at the puck. I don't see why you don't understand this. Show me a clip where Hasek purposely skates out and slides at the player and NOT the puck, because every other similar play I've seen has him diving at the puck, even if it means missing the opposing player completely. I can't see how you can say suddenly say that you are sure that in this particular incident that he wasn't trying to slide at the puck even though his body slid directly into it.

He did if he wanted to stop the breakaway. Or Gaborik could have kept his head up like he was taught when he was 12 years old. Just because an opposing player is looking down isn't going to stop Hasek for going for the puck and do all he can to keep it out of the net. It's what he gets paid for.

Bah, debating this really isn't doing much good at this point. It's quite obvious there are 3 or 4 posters who will try to find flaws in whatever Hasek does. Luckily most of us can see the play for what it was. :D

- Houdini

The first clip is irrelevant. Why? You can't see how Dom went after the puck. It's like showing you a picture of a mangled car and asking you who caused the accident. All you have to make the decision on is the result, therefore, you can't make an informed decision.

The third clip, if anything, would prove Dom didn't have to take out Gaborik. Watch the clip (Hasek/Gaborik) again, the puck was right in front of Gaborik's left foot. So why did Dom take out both feet? He didn't have to. Hasek didn't need to take Gaborik out like he did. He could just as easily slid the other direction, and made the play. Hasek chose to take out Gaborik.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first clip is irrelevant. Why? You can't see how Dom went after the puck. It's like showing you a picture of a mangled car and asking you who caused the accident. All you have to make the decision on is the result, therefore, you can't make an informed decision.

The third clip, if anything, would prove Dom didn't have to take out Gaborik. Watch the clip (Hasek/Gaborik) again, the puck was right in front of Gaborik's left foot. So why did Dom take out both feet? He didn't have to. Hasek didn't need to take Gaborik out like he did. He could just as easily slid the other direction, and made the play. Hasek chose to take out Gaborik.

No, he didn't. Give it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just have one question for all the Hasek haters, If we go into the playoffs with him as our number one and he helps our team win a stanley cup will you still cut off your nose to spite your face or will you give credit where credit is due?

I couldn't agree more...tell me did Ducks fans have this kind of hatred for one or the other last year when you had a goalie carousel???

I don't like Hasek much at all but I think most will attest that my reasons are different than the bandwagon Osgood fans primarily because it's not like I'm Osgood's biggest fan by any stretch. I've been more than fair about giving Hasek his due and have supported him getting starts to prove if he can handle it more than half the Hasek-bandwagon. I've also said all along that I want the best guy starting in the playoffs whoever that may be.

I can't believe the bashing here is so off base that I'm actually supporting Hasek.

I think Dom has been mostly terrible this year. It's nice to see he's put together a couple games where he looks like an NHL goaltender again. Hopefully he'll still split time with Ozzy, because Osgood has earned it. And I do think Hasek is generally overrated a little at this point in his careeer because of his prior achievements.

But that has nothing to do with this play. Dom made the decision to come out after the puck and challenge. He's made that play before, as have other goalies, like Belfour.

It's not an unprecedented move. It just ended with a spectacular flip. It turned into a somewhat dangerous play and he was called for tripping. Gaborik was okay. Dom was okay. The Wings won the game.

Those of you who think he clearly went for the knees or knew what Dom was thinking need to examine your bias against him, just as much as the Dom lovers who think he's still a god among goalies.

I don't think Dom had intent to injure at all. I'm not arguing that at all. I believe 100% that he was trying to make the save. However, by no means does that mean that I think that the type of play isn't dangerous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

asdfasdfasdfasdfasdf

I could just as easily say Gaborik didn't have to run Dom.

Again, I'm as hard on Dom as the next guy, but he shouldn't be blamed for this. If anyone should be faulted for the way it turned out, it's Gaborik; Dom did what goalies have been doing for ages in that situation, whereas Gaborik made a rookie mistake in barreling down with his eyes on the puck. Had he simply kept his eyes on Dom, he wouldn't have gone flying (he might have even scored), and everyone would see Dom's move for what it was: an uncommon but perfectly legal way of challenging a breakaway. That Dom was called for a penalty is not proof that it wasn't a perfectly legal play. I can't believe you're playing that card.

If this discussion is going to continue, can we at least get a well-reasoned argument against Dom's move that goes beyond "He totally took him out!"?

You could, but that show how much of a homer you are being in this situation.

Stating your feelings about Dom is pointless. All that is, is you trying to justify your remarks about this situation.

This has nothing to do with Dom's netminding skills. It's all about one single play that Dom made. It was poor choice by Dom. It showed a lack of respect for a fellow player.

Again, the only reason Gaborik had his head down was because he was trying to settle to puck down. It wasn't as if he was trying to deke out Hasek, with his head down.

How is Dom getting a penalty on the play not proof the play wasn't perfectly legal? What are you smoking, where are you getting it, and can I get some?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am glad the vast majority of posters here understand that the game is hockey, and rules are rules. Hasek didn't do anything illegal, or immoral, in executing a perfectly legal play. <_<

It's also nice to see that most people here support and understand that Hasek is a hockey player, and not "just" a goalie. Both of our 'tenders have hockey skill beyond that of the average goalie. So, we could be happy about that and enjoy it. But this is LGW, so what can we expect?

People don't like the instigator rule. But it's a rule. Rules are rules. It's ok for them to *****. I don't like that goalies can do this. Never have. So I can't *****? You're beyond irrational.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People don't like the instigator rule. But it's a rule. Rules are rules. It's ok for them to *****. I don't like that goalies can do this. Never have. So I can't *****? You're beyond irrational.

Because I don't agree with you, I am irrational? Okey dokey. Please, resume bitching. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

blah blah blah its dangerous.......blah blah.

I personally think Gaborik should PAY Hasek for giving him a ride like that. Am I the only one who thinks that would be fun. I mean, sure Gabby COULD have been injured, but he wasn't and open ice hits are alot worse than that. Marion probably wasn't even hurt. I have waited in line for 2 hours to experience that s*** on a rollercoaster, and Hasek gives Gaborik a free ride and Gaborik has the balls to complain?!!! That right there is the real crime. Penalize Gaborik for being ungrateful.

Go Wings.!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first clip is irrelevant. Why? You can't see how Dom went after the puck. It's like showing you a picture of a mangled car and asking you who caused the accident. All you have to make the decision on is the result, therefore, you can't make an informed decision.

The third clip, if anything, would prove Dom didn't have to take out Gaborik. Watch the clip (Hasek/Gaborik) again, the puck was right in front of Gaborik's left foot. So why did Dom take out both feet? He didn't have to. Hasek didn't need to take Gaborik out like he did. He could just as easily slid the other direction, and made the play. Hasek chose to take out Gaborik.

What other direction? He slid straight into Gaborik, so that would imply, the only "other" direction is away from him. What's he supposed to do, make a precision surgical strike on the puck? Hasek didn't choose to take out Gaborik, he chose to put as much of himself between the puck and the goal as possible, rather than dance around trying to make some fancypants play 30 feet from the net.

Again, the only reason Gaborik had his head down was because he was trying to settle to puck down. It wasn't as if he was trying to deke out Hasek, with his head down.

Oh, he was settling the puck down. Well, that changes everything. Really, chap, how truly unsporting. I say, what kind of barbaric competition would allow someone to get hit while they don't have the puck entirely settled? Come, guv, let us retire to the croquet grounds for a spot of tea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because I don't agree with you, I am irrational? Okey dokey. Please, resume bitching. :P

You are irrational because you can't recognize that my distaste for the play arises from a distaste for the rules on the matter. You continually keep saying "rules are rules" which is a relevant point in some arguments, however, it's not a logical rebuttal to what I as well as others have said about not liking the rule. You either don't understand what you're reading or don't take the time to process the opposing sides argument as anything more than slanted anti-Hasek propaganda...and that as if the converse of the statement couldn't just as easily be turned around on you with the same amount of argumentative power. You don't have to agree with what I say at all, but stop assuming so much and deal with what's there and you'll start developing a more logical, rational habit of posting. And I don't mean that in a small way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is a...

IPB Image

so for the people who just despise Hasek and/or keep trying to reach for excuses that Hasek made a dirty play or intentionally injured...

IPB Image

because you people are decreasing the intelligence of myself and other intelligent posters in this forum.

Thank you.

Edited by SouthernWingsFan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, he was settling the puck down. Well, that changes everything. Really, chap, how truly unsporting. I say, what kind of barbaric competition would allow someone to get hit while they don't have the puck entirely settled? Come, guv, let us retire to the croquet grounds for a spot of tea.

They're a bunch of bloody savages, they are!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hasek didn't violate any rules. And I disagree with anyone who says the play was with intent to injure. Clearly it was not. The refs called a penalty on a play that was perfectly legal, as many other posters have stated in depth over and over. It's a discussion, not a debate. But if you want to think you won, OK.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I can say is I cannot wait until the Wings-Wild game on the 22nd! I will be there red-line to see it all go down... It's going to be one hell of a game. Maybe a little rivalry can come from this and St. Paul officially stealing the Hockeytown USA name... :thumbup:

Edited by RedStormRising

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blah blah blah its dangerous.......blah blah.

I personally think Gaborik should PAY Hasek for giving him a ride like that. Am I the only one who thinks that would be fun. I mean, sure Gabby COULD have been injured, but he wasn't and open ice hits are alot worse than that. Marion probably wasn't even hurt. I have waited in line for 2 hours to experience that s*** on a rollercoaster, and Hasek gives Gaborik a free ride and Gaborik has the balls to complain?!!! That right there is the real crime. Penalize Gaborik for being ungrateful.

Go Wings.!

LMAO. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hopefully Chris Mason pulls this exact move on Datsyuk or Zetterberg on monday night. I'd love to see the reactions then.

I PROMISE i would be saying "Damn, nice play by Mason" and be cursing Hank or Dats for not having their head up and allowing themselves the potential to be injured. What Dom did was not even remotely dirty. Maybe it was a penalty, I don't know for sure, but calling it dirty is ludicrous. He made a great heads up play for the puck and body, and got both. That's like saying a defenseman who slides on the ice to break up a play is endangering the safety of the other players out there. I really can't believe this is an 11 page thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now