• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

SylenT

Hasek Challenges, Gaborik goes Airborn

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

And Lemaire wanted a match penalty given for it. Well, my advice to you, Jacques, is, if you want sympathy, I suggest the dictionary - somewhere between s*** and syphillis.

Edited by Kira

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Lemaire wanted a match penalty given for it. Well, my advice to you, Jacques, is, if you want sympathy, I suggest the dictionary - somewhere between s*** and syphillis.

When making jokes with the use of dictionary words, it is more effective to spell the words correctly....syphilis has only one "l" :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Small correction. There's 12 pages of a huge majority defending Hasek against one or two individuals who insist it was a dirty play. Oh, and a small goalie war. It wouldn't be a thread about Hasek without someone going "Ozzie's better!" And vice versa.

and the 2 twins that apparently left the thread (thank god) argue about everything. so i think some of the posters that were in here were just arguing for the sake of it. I have seen the same 2 posters argue in just about every thread they post in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to extend this thread any longer, but I will.

1 - the play resulted in a penalty, which was the right call, no matter

how you want to argue it. Think about it, if a defenseman made

the same play, would you think it was within the rules? Goalies

shouldn't be any different. A play within the rules would have been

to poke check at the puck and perhaps take the player down on

the follow through, but diving at a players feet and maybe hitting

the puck first because it happens to be in front of the players feet

does not make the play legal.

2 - All that said, it was not a dirty play and was actually a very good

play. It was dangerous from the point of view that had Gabby had

his head up, Hasek would have looked like a complete fool. It

worked for Hasek and no goal was scored. Some, I think, are

looking at the spectacular flight through the air as a reason to

suggest it was dirty. Had Gabby simply bumped into Hasek and

fallen down, no one would be talking about this right now.

But it sure puts it in the gray area due to the fact that he did get the puck first and took Gaborik out second. No offense Toby, but talk about a contradiction between your two points.

In your first point you say it was an illegal hit, yet in the second point you say it was a good play. IMO, aside from something like hooking someone on a breakaway to prevent a goal (thus taking a penalty), there isn't anything in hockey that can be considered a good play while being illegal. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the second point you give reason as to why it wasn't dirty due to the fact that we wouldn't be discussing this had Gaborik not flown through the air.

Was it a little questionable seeing as that he barely got the puck before he took out Gaborik: I can see your argument. Was it within the rules: Yes.

Edited by Never Forget Mac #25

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it sure puts it in the gray area due to the fact that he did get the puck first and took Gaborik out second. No offense Toby, but talk about a contradiction between your two points.

In your first point you say it was an illegal hit, yet in the second point you say it was a good play. IMO, aside from something like hooking someone on a breakaway to prevent a goal (thus taking a penalty), there isn't anything in hockey that can be considered a good play while being illegal. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the second point you give reason as to why it wasn't dirty due to the fact that we wouldn't be discussing this had Gaborik not flown through the air.

Was it a little questionable seeing as that he barely got the puck before he took out Gaborik: I can see your argument. Was it within the rules: Yes.

My main point was this: Penalty - yes, dirty - no. I can think of plenty of illegal plays that I would consider to be good plays in certain game circumstances. They would pretty much all involve taking down a guy who has a very good chance of scoring.

The thing that makes it clear to me is that Hasek didn't actually make an attempt to play the puck with his stick, this is when you would generally look to see if he made contact with the puck first. I this case, I don't even think you look at whether he got the puck first or not.

Oh, my position would probably totally change if both players were racing towards a loose puck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My main point was this: Penalty - yes, dirty - no.

To me, its more the other way around. Penalty: No, Dirty: Somewhat, but not totally.

I can think of plenty of illegal plays that I would consider to be good plays in certain game circumstances. They would pretty much all involve taking down a guy who has a very good chance of scoring.

That's what I meant by this comment:

IMO, aside from something like hooking someone on a breakaway to prevent a goal (thus taking a penalty), there isn't anything in hockey that can be considered a good play while being illegal.

Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "only", but I figured you'd understand that I was in agreement with you as far the illegal plays that would involve disrupting a scoring chance.

The thing that makes it clear to me is that Hasek didn't actually make an attempt to play the puck with his stick, this is when you would generally look to see if he made contact with the puck first. I this case, I don't even think you look at whether he got the puck first or not.

But he did make contact with his stick first.

Oh, my position would probably totally change if both players were racing towards a loose puck.

I wouldn't doubt that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, aside from something like hooking someone on a breakaway to prevent a goal (thus taking a penalty), there isn't anything in hockey that can be considered a good play while being illegal.

I think there's lots of illegal plays that are good plays. Fighting's illegal, but that can be a good thing. And I think charging/roughing/elbowing can be a good thing once in a while too. I'm still nowhere near convinced that what Hasek did was illegal, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there's lots of illegal plays that are good plays. Fighting's illegal, but that can be a good thing. And I think charging/roughing/elbowing can be a good thing once in a while too. I'm still nowhere near convinced that what Hasek did was illegal, though.

Did you read my follow up to that? I'll post it for you:

Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "only", but I figured you'd understand that I was in agreement with you as far the illegal plays that would involve disrupting a scoring chance.

Aside from breaking up a scoring opportunity how can an illegal charge, rough or elbow be a good thing. I wouldn't lump discretions like fighting into the mix seeing as that its generally away from the play, and doesn't break up a scoring chance.

I'm all for fighting or hitting in order to swing the momentum of the game, but that has nothing to do with the illegal plays I'm referring to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to extend this thread any longer, but I will.

1 - the play resulted in a penalty, which was the right call, no matter

how you want to argue it. Think about it, if a defenseman made

the same play, would you think it was within the rules? Goalies

shouldn't be any different. A play within the rules would have been

to poke check at the puck and perhaps take the player down on

the follow through, but diving at a players feet and maybe hitting

the puck first because it happens to be in front of the players feet

does not make the play legal.

Sorta like how everyone is adamant that goalies should be fair game? Ahhh, but the tables are turned now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you read my follow up to that? I'll post it for you:

Aside from breaking up a scoring opportunity how can an illegal charge, rough or elbow be a good thing. I wouldn't lump discretions like fighting into the mix seeing as that its generally away from the play, and doesn't break up a scoring chance.

I'm all for fighting or hitting in order to swing the momentum of the game, but that has nothing to do with the illegal plays I'm referring to.

No, I got your follow up, didn't mean to make it seem like I missed it. I was just saying that I think big hits can be good plays sometimes, even if you get a penalty for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I got your follow up, didn't mean to make it seem like I missed it. I was just saying that I think big hits can be good plays sometimes, even if you get a penalty for them.

Big hits are fine.......pulling a Pronger-on-Holmstrom like last year is not a good play, and it is illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big hits are fine.......pulling a Pronger-on-Holmstrom like last year is not a good play, and it is illegal.

I never said Pronger-esque. Maybe the elbow not so much. But I'll take a charge and a rough any damn day. I'm fully aware it's illegal. But sometimes 2 minutes is worth it to really ring a guys bell and get your teammates/crowd back into the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you read my follow up to that? I'll post it for you:

Aside from breaking up a scoring opportunity how can an illegal charge, rough or elbow be a good thing.

Ahem, McCarty sucker punching Lemieux in retribution for the Draper hit. Of course, I'm sure some would disagree with what McCarty did, but damn was that the best game of my life. :cool:

- Houdini

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said Pronger-esque. Maybe the elbow not so much. But I'll take a charge and a rough any damn day. I'm fully aware it's illegal. But sometimes 2 minutes is worth it to really ring a guys bell and get your teammates/crowd back into the game.

My point is, why do you need to charge in the first place? Can't you lay out a bone-crushing hit within the legal rules of the game?

Ahem, McCarty sucker punching Lemieux in retribution for the Draper hit. Of course, I'm sure some would disagree with what McCarty did, but damn was that the best game of my life. :cool:

- Houdini

Retribution for a cheapshot from a past game is nothing like what I'm describing. Seriously people, stop taking every single word of my post so literally. If you don't know what I'm tlaking about, then actually read the rest of my post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Retribution for a cheapshot from a past game is nothing like what I'm describing. Seriously people, stop taking every single word of my post so literally. If you don't know what I'm tlaking about, then actually read the rest of my post.

I did read your post. You said:

In your first point you say it was an illegal hit, yet in the second point you say it was a good play. IMO, aside from something like hooking someone on a breakaway to prevent a goal (thus taking a penalty), there isn't anything in hockey that can be considered a good play while being illegal. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the second point you give reason as to why it wasn't dirty due to the fact that we wouldn't be discussing this had Gaborik not flown through the air.

I named something other than preventing a goal that I considered a 'good play'. Where's the problem here?

- Houdini

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did read your post. You said:

I named something other than preventing a goal that I considered a 'good play'. Where's the problem here?

- Houdini

And just one post later, I posted the following:

Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "only", but I figured you'd understand that I was in agreement with you as far the illegal plays that would involve disrupting a scoring chance.

I figured people would catch my drift a little better than they did, so I clarified. I'm referring to actual game play, not the situation that took place between the Wings and Avs.

Again, people take every single word that's posted on these boards so literally all the time. It makes it very difficult to make the simplest of statements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the uproar into this stems from the fact that Lemaire and others have suggested an "intent" to injure. That would indicate this being an isolated occurrence, which of course has been disproven by the recollections of any fans who witnessed last season for Dom and beyond, an occurrence in which Hasek saw Gaborik bearing down and thought, I am going to hurt this guy by taking out his legs. Mmmmmmhm.

I was randomly viewing some games from my Hasek gametape archive, hundreds of games worth. This particular afternoon I took in three games from Dominik's 2005-06 season with Ottawa. The games were early December 2005 vs. Los Angeles, Florida, and Vancouver. Keep in mind this was random viewing. In the LA game, Hasek came out and used the Gaborik play to foil a King, which player I can't recall, saving a goal on the breakaway. In the next game 6 days later, Hasek used the Gaborik play to prevent a Joe Nieuwendyk breakaway goal. He almost missed, but disrupted Nieuwendyk enough for Joe to miss the net on the backhand. In the next game against Vancouver, he came sliding out on a Sedin breakaway, dropped his stick accidentally while skating, knocked the puck away but the other Sedin twin picked it up and scored. Later in the game, Hasek came out the same way to successfully this time break up a Todd Bertuzzi breakaway. Bertuzzi and Hasek both were shaken up after this collision, although both returned to play immediately. Late in that game, another long breakaway pass had Hasek racing out, but the pass missed the receiver and went deep into the zone behind the net, with Hasek 3/4 of the way to the blueline. That is 5 attempts on 5 breakaways in 3 consecutive games, stopping 4/5 breakaways.

Just thought people would be interested.

Edited by shadow47

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that's true, this is the first time in the history of the NHL that a completely legal play has resulted in a penalty. You should write Bettman and make sure that ref gets fired. There is no room in the NHL for refs who call penalties on completely legal plays.

:rolleyes:

Have you ever watched hockey before??? This is far from the first time a ref made a bad call on a perfectly legal play. I'd venture to say it happens at least once a night. Like you've never said to yourself..."that was a bulls*** call". LMAO :lol:

Oh and BTW who do you want to "Bring Home the Cup" because it doesn't sound like your a Wings fan. Or maybe you didn't know Hasek is a Red Wing

Some of the uproar into this stems from the fact that Lemaire and others have suggested an "intent" to injure. That would indicate this being an isolated occurrence, which of course has been disproven by the recollections of any fans who witnessed last season for Dom and beyond, an occurrence in which Hasek saw Gaborik bearing down and thought, I am going to hurt this guy by taking out his legs. Mmmmmmhm.

I was randomly viewing some games from my Hasek gametape archive, hundreds of games worth. This particular afternoon I took in three games from Dominik's 2005-06 season with Ottawa. The games were early December 2005 vs. Los Angeles, Florida, and Vancouver. Keep in mind this was random viewing. In the LA game, Hasek came out and used the Gaborik play to foil a King, which player I can't recall, saving a goal on the breakaway. In the next game 6 days later, Hasek used the Gaborik play to prevent a Joe Nieuwendyk breakaway goal. He almost missed, but disrupted Nieuwendyk enough for Joe to miss the net on the backhand. In the next game against Vancouver, he came sliding out on a Sedin breakaway, dropped his stick accidentally while skating, knocked the puck away but the other Sedin twin picked it up and scored. Later in the game, Hasek came out the same way to successfully this time break up a Todd Bertuzzi breakaway. Bertuzzi and Hasek both were shaken up after this collision, although both returned to play immediately. Late in that game, another long breakaway pass had Hasek racing out, but the pass missed the receiver and went deep into the zone behind the net, with Hasek 3/4 of the way to the blueline. That is 5 attempts on 5 breakaways in 3 consecutive games, stopping 4/5 breakaways.

Just thought people would be interested.

I'm just jealous you have such an extensive Hasek game collection! :clap:

Edited by Booster313

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is, why do you need to charge in the first place? Can't you lay out a bone-crushing hit within the legal rules of the game?

Retribution for a cheapshot from a past game is nothing like what I'm describing. Seriously people, stop taking every single word of my post so literally. If you don't know what I'm tlaking about, then actually read the rest of my post.

For the record, it has nothing to do with taking your words literally... I don't even disagree with you about what you said in the least. It's just that this thread was such an abortion by this page I figured I'd just expand on what you said.

And sure you can lay out a good hard hit without charging, but you can lay out an even better one if you charge :devil:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, it has nothing to do with taking your words literally... I don't even disagree with you about what you said in the least. It's just that this thread was such an abortion by this page I figured I'd just expand on what you said.

And sure you can lay out a good hard hit without charging, but you can lay out an even better one if you charge :devil:

Yeah, but when it gets to that point I just refrain from adding fuel to the fire. You know what's a real challange? Posting on topic after pages of absolute fluff.

That comment isn't directed at you in any way.

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