WorkingOvertime

With Homer and Bert, Abby won't get many chances on the top lines when the team is healthy. Hopefully he can improve next year, and be able to take the next step in after Bert/Homer retire. He seems like a Cleary type player that can play on any line.

I think his play is based on his line-mates more than most players. His production seems to increase greatly when playing on the top 2/3 lines (healthy lines) compared to playing on the fourth. His last great streak was after being placed with Modano and Cleary, and he played great today with Bert and Mule. His play with Helm, Eaves, Miller was solid, but his offense wasn't there.

He's been shooting a lot recentely, so it was only a matter of time before they started going in. Great game by Abby tonight.

Babcock disagrees with you. In the post-game, he praised Bert for providing the spark the team needed. Good try (to diss fighting) though. EDIT- Cleary also disagrees with you.

ABBY! Hopefully this will calm the Abby haters on here.

It has been reported on many sites that the league agreed to allow the Wings to move first if there was a change in the divisions. I believe this was years ago though, so I am not entirely confident it would still be applied.

Exactly. Lucic is a good fighter, but definitely not a legit heavyweight. What does everyone think of Clowe? He's putting up good points and fighting some decent (but not legit heavies) people.

If Orr can play (which he has been cleared to do)- likely not. Brown is the second fighter that Leafs went with for most of the season, and Rosehill would need to take his spot (or another one). Looch is a good fighter, but he is certainly not one of the best. Rosehill wouldn't be considered on anyone's best list, and Looch had a good fight for a draw. When talking about best, it's MacIntyre, Orr, Boogy, etc. If one player being in the box costs your team the game, then your team probably doesn't deserve to win. How does your argument applicable to anyone not on the Wings' top 2 lines?

.

Gaborik hit Nielsen from behind in the Isles/Rags game. Nielsen is out for the rest of the game. I'm hoping he gets 1 game, as this hit would be suspendable if it were other (3rd/4th line) players.

What upsets me is that Prust and Gillies get 10 min misconducts for talking, and penalties like this are just 2 min.

He got 2 min for the hit. I believe there was another 2 min added for the ensuing altercation. To me, this should be a suspension, because if a lot of other players did this, people would be calling for multiple games. I think Gaborik should have gotten a game misconduct and nothing else. Since there was no game misconduct given, one game will suffice.

I'd also like to see this as well as statistics on the accuracy of concussion diagnosis. While concussions appear to be up, some amount of that increase is likely attributable to increases in concussion detection.

.

It does effect vision. Even the pro-visor posters on this forum have said that. It's not so substantial that a player cannot score, but there is an effect. Saying there is no good reason to not wear a visor ignores the last half of my last post. For fighters, not having a visor is the safest thing. Serious eye injuries as a result of not wearing a visor are very rare, and so are serious injuries to a player not wearing a helmet while fighting (largely from the head hitting the ice). Therefore, requiring visors would also require (honorable) fighters to remove their helmet and thus increase the risk of this type of injury occurring. I would argue that it benefits their health to not wear a visor. The arguments here largely ignore this. I have been reluctant to comment on it because I know a lot of posters here don't like fighting or don't fully understand it in the NA game. As I said in an earlier post, if most new players are choosing to wear visors, why is this an issue? Fighters will likely choose not to wear one, and this is probably beneficial to their health. All (or most) new NHL players have worn visors and can thus make an intelligent decision on them.

.

If you want to quote the rule-book, I believe this description best fits the play. Charging would have allowed the call to be a major but not a game misconduct. However, tying to match the rulebook definition to the call on the ice is often difficult. The rule for elbowing states that player uses their extended elbow to cause injury. IMO the amount of injury on the play is debatable itself. From the video and screen shots it is clear that the elbow does not make contact with the head or any other part of the body. Therefore, it is erroneous to say that the extended elbow cause the injury. In fact, most NHL hits involve an extension on the arm/elbow on the follow-through, and should therefore be called elbowing by your interpretation. I will admit that discussing the nuances of rule interpretation is likely a useless discussion since the NHL cannot even get it right. As I said, it as certainly a penalty. However, the call was not deserving of a game misconduct. There have been multiple game misconducts called this year that have been weak IMO. No. I am calling for a league review of all questionable hits after the game. The league already does this. I just believe that the refs shouldn't make a game misconduct call without complete certainty of the play. Bert's hit certainly looked dirty, but I don't think any ref could have be certain that the elbow hit the head (which is did not).

A five minute elbowing call is an automatic game misconduct. I think it should have been a major roughing call due to the recklessness of the hit. However, I don't agree with the amount of game misconducts being called recently (including this one). When the play is obvious, like Cooke's latest elbow, I agree with the call but IMO it is being called too much on borderline plays. Bert's hit looked bad in real-time, but after reply is it obvious that contact to the head by the elbow didn't happen. Therefore, there the automatic game misconduct was incorrect. If the ref's are unsure, I'd rather have the player stay in the game. The league can always issue a game suspension if that should have been called, but an incorrectly called game misconduct can't be rescinded.

One could argue that visors created more facial injuries (less serious ones). In a recent interview (I posted it on here as a topic), Gretzky said that he used to be forced to practice without a helmet. This created a level of respect when it came to keeping shots and stick lower to the ice. Visors have allowed players to have less control of their sticks due to the added level of protection. I would bet that if you watch a game ~30 years ago, sticks and shots would be lower to the ice. Adding facial protection has mitigated the large injuries (especially going from no helmets to helmets), but the amount of cuts to the face is alarming IMO. Your argument seems to support not having visors since that would reduce the amount of players using their sticks recklessly. I agree that shoulder pads should be limited- it is rare to see a shoulder injury result from a good hit (on the hitter). The 'classic' Sherwood series should pads are great IMO. I agree with protecting players from each other (within the integrity of the game) but I don't think the league needs to protect the players from their own choices. Like in life, we are allowed to smoke, drink, etc because they are only harmful to ourselves (mostly) and I don't see why NHL players shouldn't have the choice. However, this is the same society that doesn't let kids walk 500 yards to school by themselves anymore, so I may be the minority (but that topic is better saved for the other forum). Again, I'm not in support of no visors, but I don't see why players should have to wear them. I believe any GM could force their players to wear visors (I know Burke requires the Marlies to wear M11 helmets), but that hasn't happened. Who are we, as forum members, to suggest that Bert, Mule, Orr, Lucic, E, etc shouldn't be allowed to wear visors? Most have been forced to wear them at some time in their career, and have chosen not the wear one. Why is it debatable that they shouldn't have this choice? How is keeping the choice degrading the game?

I think you are misunderstanding my argument. I'm not arguing that players shouldn't wear visors, just that they shouldn't be mandatory. I wear a visor when I play- therefore I'm not against them- but I have the choice, and I think NHL player should too. I point out that visors can cause injuries because some posters in this thread imply that they do. If protection is the number one priority, as some posters here imply, than cages are the next step. Where is the line drawn when it comes to player protection? T Since more players are exposed to visors in the CHL, AHL, USHL, etc. I think they can now make an informed decision on visors. My question is why shouldn't the players be allowed to choose? They can still choose what elbow and shoulder pads to wear, and there cause more injuries to other people. I'm all for making the game safer (while keeping the integrity- see my posts on head shots), but I believe the players should be able to choose when it comes to their own health if it doesn't have a negative impact on others.

Kopecky is playing on a much better line than Abby. Also, with the Wings Kope only had 19 points in his best season. Abby should come close to matching that this year. I think that Abby will be a better player, but he likely won't get as good of linemates while Cleary, Homer, Bert are on the team. Therefore, his number will be lower than Kope's but I don't think they tell the whole story.

Does a two minute elbowing penalty exist anymore? He should not get any games. The misconduct was harsh enough.

Watch the replay again. The point of contact was not the elbow.

And he somehow has a contract with 3 NHL related organizations. I wonder how many emails to Versus it would take to get this guy off national TV. I know most of the posters on HFBoards hate him.

Seriously Versus? Seriously? A chicken-s*** play? The hit wasn't clean, but it's no worse than any hit that has caused suspension this year and many that haven't. Even some of the Hawks fans on HFBoards are questioning the call.