Mitchell hit on Toews

[Opie 308]

He also pointed out that he took issue with Laperriere zoning in on Lids rather than the puck with the intention of drilling him. Same way

Mitchell zoned in on Toews and drilled him. Then he praised Downey for doing something about it!

Downey said that he was sending a message around the league that if you run the captain you will have to pay the price. If that hit qualifies as running the captain I don't see how you could say the Mitchell hit doesn't.

Where would you start? Is the captain a good place? What are your boundaries? Does Hank need to be hit knee to knee before you do something about it?

As for the timing of it all, maybe it should be illegal to immediately retaliate but the refs blew the whistle and they didn't issue any instigator and they consistently haven't called it that way. Is it really less of an instigator to jump a guy the next period or immediately after a perceived offense? In most cases, the person you want to retaliate just isn't on the ice at the same time.

I already stated I don't think Lids got ran, Downey did though, I don't!

And Draper said he took issue with it, really when, I heard him say Lappy finished his check, exact words, he didn't say ran him, he didn't say elbowed him, he didn't say anything other than he finished his check which Draper found to be unnecessary. Unnecessary, not a very strong word.

Where do I start, quite simply when someone breaks the rules and nails my teammate. Elbowing, butt ending, spearing, boarding, all things that are considered penalties, that is where I would start.

So that I know you would rather have seen Markov attacked by the other team instead of Dats breaking in to score? You think in that instance Markov was in the wrong and should pay a price?

Is you stance that hard, clean hits are something you want retribution for?

But since I answered your question why don't you try answering mine, avoidance is akin to admitting defeat.

And no it is no more an instigator penalty at the time or 2 periods later, or a game later, or a whole season later, or waiting until the playoffs that is the point most of us have made, there was no penalty on Chi for instigator, and they lost a break away.

Clean play should not be followed by a stop in play because a teammate is unhappy with said clean play.

What his teammates should say is "Hey kid, don't forget to look both ways before crossing the street! AHAHAHAHAHAH, keep your chin up son, this is a mans game!"

[pat_honda 0]

too bad it wasnt kane

Classy...

[egroen 384]

If a player wants to send a message after a clean hit, fine... no problem.

I just wish the refs were not so fast to call the play dead, especially if the hit creates a scoring opportunity.

[kook_10 1,705]

So that I know you would rather have seen Markov attacked by the other team instead of Dats breaking in to score? You think in that instance Markov was in the wrong and should pay a price?

dumb question. I am a Wings fan - I would rather see the Wings score in any circumstance. If I were on Edmonton, Stoll probably wouldn't be worth sending a message over.

Is your stance that hard, clean hits are something you want retribution for?

One sided hits which are injurious to my team's key players. You can define this on your own.

Clean play should not be followed by a stop in play because a teammate is unhappy with said clean play.

I never said play should be stopped. See the Konstantinov hit.

Egroen: If a player wants to send a message after a clean hit, fine... no problem.

I just wish the refs were not so fast to call the play dead, especially if the hit creates a scoring opportunity.

QFT

Unfortunately there has been no league pronouncement on dealing with it.

[Hack & Whack Rule! 160]

dumb question. I am a Wings fan - I would rather see the Wings score in any circumstance. If I were on Edmonton, Stoll probably wouldn't be worth sending a message over.

Double standard. You are making this thread ridiculous. You have come up with so many "ifs, ands and buts" that I'm surprised you haven't travelled backward through time.

[kook_10 1,705]

no double standard - what was confusing about important players, key players or captains? take a hike.

[Hack & Whack Rule! 160]

no double standard - what was confusing about important players, key players or captains? take a hike.

I'll take an explanation, if you can ever give a sensible one, Mr. Toews. You've posted all kinds of garbage about intent to injure, hitting when the guy doesn't expect it, the month of October and captains. The way you want the game to be played, the refs will have to blow the whistle after every hit. Then they will have to confer with each other, several players from each team, the head coaches and the salary cap chart. All of this to determine if the hit was ok, and whether the other team can/should retaliate, how they should do it, and when. I asked for some clarification in an earlier post, and you still haven't given answers from there, so I'm going to assume that you are a twelve year old with no idea about the topic to which you claim to know so much. Go finish your Kraft Dinner and hot dogs then do your homework.

[kook_10 1,705]

yawn - go cry yourself to sleep again Mr. Wack and Jack my Tool

[Guest Shoreline]

He also pointed out that he took issue with Laperriere zoning in on Lids rather than the puck with the intention of drilling him. Same way

Mitchell zoned in on Toews and drilled him. Then he praised Downey for doing something about it!

Downey said that he was sending a message around the league that if you run the captain you will have to pay the price. If that hit qualifies as running the captain I don't see how you could say the Mitchell hit doesn't.

Where would you start? Is the captain a good place? What are your boundaries? Does Hank need to be hit knee to knee before you do something about it?

As for the timing of it all, maybe it should be illegal to immediately retaliate but the refs blew the whistle and they didn't issue any instigator and they consistently haven't called it that way. Is it really less of an instigator to jump a guy the next period or immediately after a perceived offense? In most cases, the person you want to retaliate just isn't on the ice at the same time.

Last I checked, hits to the knees are not legal. I think in the WWE they retaliate by taking out someone's kneecaps in the locker area. Is this what you mean? What is your fix with retaliation? Not only is it dumb on a legal hit at all, but it's even worse if it's done later. Here's how players retaliate -- you play harder, keep your head up, score on them and make them lose. It isn't hockey to retaliate by beating their ass, as we saw this with Bertuzzi, and the result of what happens when you base actions on retaliation and that sort of knee-jerk s***.

I'm glad you think that Downey going after Lappy had anything to do with sending a message to the rest of the league, because it never stopped players from hitting Lids, and as it was, few to none would have ever taken a charge like that at Lids anyways, as shown the following year when Lids wasn't knocked out by dirty hits without Downey or any enforcer being there to protect the poor weak Euro captain from getting run. However, people like you selectively seek out stuff to perpetuate this religious fantasy of this sideshow being necessary, while ignoring how things are fine without it. As it's clearly spelled out, retaliation is entertainment and this kind of entertainment is all some people seek.

Edited October 23, 2009 by Shoreline

[Hack & Whack Rule! 160]

Yes, you just proved that you are a twelve year old. Or, at the very least, you have the mentality of one. You can't explain yourself, and you can't even try. You get to go on the ignore list with other people that don't make sense and won't admit they made a mistake.

[Nhurdi 42]

Toews missed a second practice. Not sure if that was posted anywhere so thought I would mention it.

[Chairman Maouth 97]

Nothing wrong with Chicago trying to go after Mitchell. They're not going to pat him on the back and say "great hit Willy, way to lay out our captain with a clean one".

Actually, I used to do exactly that. And if my teammate was feigning an injury after a clean hit I would say "Get up you *****." It was only on a dirty hit where I would take on an opposing player.

The honour of the game and respect to opposing players for playing a tough clean game has dwindled considerably.

[Chairman Maouth 97]

True - however I think Toews' teammates wanted to send a message to Mitchell, and the Canucks...Either way it was a clean hit.

And that would be totally acceptable, except when I played a clean hit was answered at a later time with another clean hit.

All this crap with players going after eachother after clean hits makes the NHL look like a bunch of idiots. If you're good enough to play and be a captain in the NHL, you gotta expect to be hit. I think someone else mentioned on this thread that this crap all started with Gretzky and I have to agree. Gretzky and the Edmonton Oilers played a system that still has negative repurcussions for the NHL today.

[Hockeytown0001 7,652]

What's Chicago's reaction to the hit? I don't feel like going over there and checking out that blood-lust filled board they have.

[Guest Shoreline]

And that would be totally acceptable, except when I played a clean hit was answered at a later time with another clean hit.

All this crap with players going after eachother after clean hits makes the NHL look like a bunch of idiots.

I agree, but I wouldn't say the NHL as a whole, but a number of players. And the way to answer a clean hit, even if it wasn't kosher by some on-ice-standard-of-decorum, would indeed be another clean hit or even better, a goal. One memorable thing in recent times was Kariya's getting leveled by Scott Stevens. Do you go after Stevens? No, you let Kariya get his happy ass back and score a goal.

It's becoming commonplace now for broadcasts to point out the irritating nonsense of not only fighting players who make a clean hit, but the fights occurring and stopping play in the middle of scoring chances. One of them happened to the Canucks during the May fight and Canucks broadcasters were all over whoever the Canuck was that fought him. Eventually it gets annoying when the sideshow tries to usurp attention from the actual goal at hand.

Edited October 28, 2009 by Shoreline

[Opie 308]

I agree, but I wouldn't say the NHL as a whole, but a number of players. And the way to answer a clean hit, even if it wasn't kosher by some on-ice-standard-of-decorum, would indeed be another clean hit or even better, a goal. One memorable thing in recent times was Kariya's getting leveled by Scott Stevens. Do you go after Stevens? No, you let Kariya get his happy ass back and score a goal.

It's becoming commonplace now for broadcasts to point out the irritating nonsense of not only fighting players who make a clean hit, but the fights occurring and stopping play in the middle of scoring chances. One of them happened to the Canucks during the May fight and Canucks broadcasters were all over whoever the Canuck was that fought him. Eventually it gets annoying when the sideshow tries to usurp attention from the actual goal at hand.

Could not have written this better if I had tried