• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
jollymania

CLutterbuck Destroys Richards

Rate this topic

82 posts in this topic

I disagree. If you're reasonably tough, you don't let your teammate get lit up, legal or not, without a little punnishment in hopes that next time, the hitter hesitates. This is NOT new stuff. Semenko and McSorely used to fight people for breathing on Gretzky too hard. There has never been an understood requirement for a hit to be dirty in order for a fight to spring from it. If you're going to throw your body around, that's great, just be ready for the people who don't appreciate such.

And to whoever responded re stevens - very, VERY few of his fights were in response to dirty hits - they were in response to big, clean hits.

Why not fight after goals and pokechecks too? I mean if you expect to do something bad to the other team you might as well fight for everything.

If it was Richards who wanted to fight I'm fine with that. That is his battle. Ott has his own battles to fight (which he doesn't do that often) and doesn't need to worry about defending the honor of a teammate who just got leveled because of his own actions.

It's hockey brah. Play the game like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree. If you're reasonably tough, you don't let your teammate get lit up, legal or not, without a little punnishment in hopes that next time, the hitter hesitates. This is NOT new stuff. Semenko and McSorely used to fight people for breathing on Gretzky too hard. There has never been an understood requirement for a hit to be dirty in order for a fight to spring from it. If you're going to throw your body around, that's great, just be ready for the people who don't appreciate such.

And to whoever responded re stevens - very, VERY few of his fights were in response to dirty hits - they were in response to big, clean hits.

ever heard of hitting someone back?, you have a greater possibility of sending someone to mars and making them timid with a hit than a fight. And another thing, clearly fighting won't deter guys like Kronwall or Clutterbuck. The fights after clean hits disrupt the flow of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ever heard of hitting someone back?, you have a greater possibility of sending someone to mars and making them timid with a hit than a fight. And another thing, clearly fighting won't deter guys like Kronwall or Clutterbuck. The fights after clean hits disrupt the flow of the game.

And in some instances has cost teams a breakaway and a clean scoring chance (See Vancouver earlier this year)!

BTW thanks for letting me piggy back!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why not fight after goals and pokechecks too? I mean if you expect to do something bad to the other team you might as well fight for everything.

Would you say that pokechecks and goals are more, equally or less likely to cause a player to get hurt than a huge (legal or not) check? That's why.

It's hockey brah. Play the game like it.

Excuse me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ever heard of hitting someone back?, you have a greater possibility of sending someone to mars and making them timid with a hit than a fight.

I didn't realise it was an either/or. You never know if you'll have an opportunity for that big legal hit. I have no qualms with someone who fights or legally but explosively hits an opponent who ran their teammate. Ideally, they'd do both.

The fights after clean hits disrupt the flow of the game.

Did you hear how pissed off the fans got when the flow of the game was disrupted? It was just awful. I bet they all quit liking hockey after those unfortunate disruptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HAHAHA defend your player from potential injury by fighting on a clean hit.

I have a better idea, if you are Ott, next time you are on the bench next to Richards, tell him to look both ways before crossing the street.

Where does this logic end, well it is the second face off of the game and Kronwall is on the ice, he is known for hitting, as a coach do I send my fighter out to "prevent" an injury?

No, it is hockey, if you can not take a hit, this game is simply not for you (you meant in general). Richards, Umburger, and others have a habit for skating around looking at the puck, not a good habit to have.

Fighting over these hits is further proof the lack of respect players have for each other is growing.

And your posts about this being a part of the game since way back are off based. Guys would get up and get retaliation on their own, that is all that this is, your injury prevention theory is crap, it is retribution and retaliation.

Hitting is part of the game, if my linemate gets his teeth knocked out from a clean hit, I would give him a number to a good dentist and Dr. Rahmani to have his vision checked. Then after practices I would skate around, allow him to hold the puck and I will come out from behind huge cut outs to help him practice seeing hits coming.

How often does Dats get hit like this? Why? Because he alludes the hit, not only does he know where the puck is at all times he knows where the other 9 skaters are on the ice. He is even so good at it he hurts players that miss him, or leads them to collide with teammates. Checking and avoiding checks/ Ice vision are both skill sets needed to play the game!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now? You new the the NHL? It has always been a league that said "if you're gonna hit my guy, be ready for a fight." Scott Stevens did not have 100+ NHL fights because he went around looking to drop the gloves every chance he could get - he fought relatively often because people held him responsable for his hits. You wanna throw your body around? Awesome! Just be ready to back it up when you knock someone's buddy loopy. It's the way it is and it's the way it's always been in the NHL - and it's the way it should be.

This.

It's a pity Clutterbuck didn't hit Ott with that bodycheck and then fight Richards.

:lol:

Stevens also threw a lot of dirty hits, so those fights are understandable.

It's not the fighting after dirty hits that irks us, it's the fighting after perfectly clean hits - which is what Clutterbuck's hit was.

Clutterbuck has developed a rep these past few seasons of borderline hits...Like Micah posted earlier - if you're gonna take a run at a star player - you better be prepared to stand up for yourself...This is certainly nothing new in this league.

Why not fight after goals and pokechecks too? I mean if you expect to do something bad to the other team you might as well fight for everything.

Now don't start getting silly :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you hear how pissed off the fans got when the flow of the game was disrupted? It was just awful. I bet they all quit liking hockey after those unfortunate disruptions.

They sounded just as pissed as they did right after the huge hit!

Point being what fans do and do not like has nothing to do with this argument the argument is not how to build a fan base, it is are these fights after a clean hit warranted.

Fans are going to cheer for a fight regardless of whether or not it was legit or a complete one sided sucker punch, do Nashville fans not cheer after Tootoo cheapshots someone while they are dropping there gloves?

You like fights, you want more of them, you don't care what they are for or why they started, we get that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HAHAHA defend your player from potential injury by fighting on a clean hit.

I have a better idea, if you are Ott, next time you are on the bench next to Richards, tell him to look both ways before crossing the street.

Why not fight AND tell your teammate to keep his head up? Again, it isn't an either/or.

Probert was not in the wrong for punching McGuire after Yzerman started a fight with him. He was in the right. sure, he should have (and liley did) tell stevie that he shouldn't be fighting tough guys, but that isn't where it ends. You don't let people hurt your teammates - even when they have it coming.

Where does this logic end, well it is the second face off of the game and Kronwall is on the ice, he is known for hitting, as a coach do I send my fighter out to "prevent" an injury?

Nope. You (if you're say, Derek Boogard) say "I saw that hit you put on so-and-so last week. What a beauty. Did you see that fight where I put my fist inside Todd Fedoruk's head? that's you if you try that against any of my guys."

And your posts about this being a part of the game since way back are off based. Guys would get up and get retaliation on their own, that is all that this is, your injury prevention theory is crap, it is retribution and retaliation.

Do you really believe that Mcsorely and Semenko had zero impact on the amount of rough stuff Gretzky absorbed? The guy was lit up a couple of times in his whole career - partly because he had great vision, and partly because people knew that if they hit Gretzky, they would get hit much harder by the fists of a stronger, tougher, meaner man.

Hitting is part of the game, if my linemate gets his teeth knocked out from a clean hit, I would give him a number to a good dentist and Dr. Rahmani to have his vision checked. Then after practices I would skate around, allow him to hold the puck and I will come out from behind huge cut outs to help him practice seeing hits coming.

How often does Dats get hit like this? Why? Because he alludes the hit, not only does he know where the puck is at all times he knows where the other 9 skaters are on the ice. He is even so good at it he hurts players that miss him, or leads them to collide with teammates. Checking and avoiding checks/ Ice vision are both skill sets needed to play the game!

Dats eludes hits well. That's great for Dats. Not all players can or do. Again, it isn't clear to me why so many want to paint this as "Do this instead of this!" I say, "keep your head up, don't get hit, AND don't let people blow up your teammates".

Edited by micah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HAHAHA defend your player from potential injury by fighting on a clean hit.

I have a better idea, if you are Ott, next time you are on the bench next to Richards, tell him to look both ways before crossing the street.

Where does this logic end, well it is the second face off of the game and Kronwall is on the ice, he is known for hitting, as a coach do I send my fighter out to "prevent" an injury?

No, it is hockey, if you can not take a hit, this game is simply not for you (you meant in general). Richards, Umburger, and others have a habit for skating around looking at the puck, not a good habit to have.

Fighting over these hits is further proof the lack of respect players have for each other is growing.

And your posts about this being a part of the game since way back are off based. Guys would get up and get retaliation on their own, that is all that this is, your injury prevention theory is crap, it is retribution and retaliation.

Hitting is part of the game, if my linemate gets his teeth knocked out from a clean hit, I would give him a number to a good dentist and Dr. Rahmani to have his vision checked. Then after practices I would skate around, allow him to hold the puck and I will come out from behind huge cut outs to help him practice seeing hits coming.

How often does Dats get hit like this? Why? Because he alludes the hit, not only does he know where the puck is at all times he knows where the other 9 skaters are on the ice. He is even so good at it he hurts players that miss him, or leads them to collide with teammates. Checking and avoiding checks/ Ice vision are both skill sets needed to play the game!

My point of posting this video is to show that fighting after what could be deemed a clean hit is certainly not some new phenomenon

EDIT - man do I miss that passion/intensity in those days!

Edited by F.Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brutal first hit and stupid fight after it for no reason.

stupid and Ott are interchangeable!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While it may not be new (I never argued it was new) but it has seen a drastic rise in occurrence. It used to be if you destroyed a guy, or went after the 'C'. Now it is any hit on anybody that looks big.

Now if a third of fourth line guy gets lit up, there is retaliation.

Regardless if your guy had his head down or not. Retaliation for big hits to cover Gretz, sure name me another player that had the impact that Gretz had and was protected like he was, was Messier or Kurri protected like that, nope. You know why, Gretz was a once in a lifetime player, and one of the first NHLers that could not defend himself in any way shape or form. Players before him, like Howe, and the like defended themselves and didn't need anybody's help. They played in an era with basically socks and foam for padding, yet they didn't have to come to the rescue of their star players.

Gretz changed more than just how the game is played, he changed the way the players acted in the game. Of course he never did anything dirty, he couldn't protect himself from Me if he had too.

Again I ask who protected Messier? Would he not be the equivalent to Richards on the stars, or would he be Kurri? So then who protected Kurri?

Nobody, so because in 198whatever McSorely defended one player it now means that any one can start a fight over a clean hit.

This is the equivalent to your girlfriend dumping you and hitting on me, sure you want to kick my ass, but what did I do to deserve the ass kicking? I was just hanging out drinking at the bar.

Clutterbuck was hanging out at the bar, Richards play screamed "Hey, I am a newly single girl, want to stick it in my ass". Clutterbuck being the guy he is felt obligated to take advantage of the situation put in front of him. But he did nothing illegal, committed no foul on an unwritten rule, he just played the game the way it was intended, and that merits a fight?

It has gone overboard and now it is for any and almost every big hit.

You honestly don't think the frequency in these actions has gone up drastically in the last I don't know say 5-7 years?

This is no longer about defending your 'C' or best player, it is about revenge for big hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Retaliation for big hits to cover Gretz, sure name me another player that had the impact that Gretz had and was protected like he was...

Mario. Yzerman (though he didn't have that impact, he was as well protected)

...was Messier or Kurri protected like that, nope.

Sure they were. Kurri in particular.

Players before him, like Howe, and the like defended themselves and didn't need anybody's help. They played in an era with basically socks and foam for padding, yet they didn't have to come to the rescue of their star players.

In his book, Howe talked about cheapshotting opponents behind the play in retaliation for hitting Howe, embarassing Howe, or hurting his teammates.

Again I ask who protected Messier? Would he not be the equivalent to Richards on the stars, or would he be Kurri? So then who protected Kurri?

Semenko and McSorely.

You honestly don't think the frequency in these actions has gone up drastically in the last I don't know say 5-7 years?

I haven't noticed it, no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Retaliation for big hits to cover Gretz, sure name me another player that had the impact that Gretz had and was protected like he was...

Mario. Yzerman (though he didn't have that impact, he was as well protected)

...was Messier or Kurri protected like that, nope.

Sure they were. Kurri in particular.

Players before him, like Howe, and the like defended themselves and didn't need anybody's help. They played in an era with basically socks and foam for padding, yet they didn't have to come to the rescue of their star players.

In his book, Howe talked about cheapshotting opponents behind the play in retaliation for hitting Howe, embarassing Howe, or hurting his teammates.

Again I ask who protected Messier? Would he not be the equivalent to Richards on the stars, or would he be Kurri? So then who protected Kurri?

Semenko and McSorely.

You honestly don't think the frequency in these actions has gone up drastically in the last I don't know say 5-7 years?

I haven't noticed it, no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't realise it was an either/or. You never know if you'll have an opportunity for that big legal hit. I have no qualms with someone who fights or legally but explosively hits an opponent who ran their teammate. Ideally, they'd do both.

Did you hear how pissed off the fans got when the flow of the game was disrupted? It was just awful. I bet they all quit liking hockey after those unfortunate disruptions.

CLutterbuck seems to be able to hit anyone at any time, and he has made his hits speak louder than fights in games, I remember especially one game last year when seabrook trucked him and he came back and destroyed Matt Walker.

people in the arena will always enjoy a ight but on tv it kills the flow, most people actually at the game don't care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CLutterbuck seems to be able to hit anyone at any time

No he can't. You can only legally hit a guy when you're on the ice together later and he has the puck, and you're in position for the hit. To fight, you only have to be on the ice together.

Again, I have never said that one can't or shouldn't retaliate with big hits. they should. But big hits are one tool, fights are another. One doesn't interfere with the other, both can happen in the same game - you don't have to choose between them.

people in the arena will always enjoy a ight but on tv it kills the flow, most people actually at the game don't care.

do you have a source for this or is it just your own persobnal oppinion that fights in person are fun to witness but they disrupt the game when seen on TV?

My hunch (and I have zero data to back it up) is that fans generally don't get up for popcorn when there's a fight in a game they're watching, either on TV or in person. I know I don't....and I know I've never thought to myself "this fight is ruining the flow of the game..". I do think that post-whistle posturing disrupts the flow of the game and that anyone talking s***, facewashing ior shoving without getting into a fight should be given 2 for delay of game. that stuff happens way too often and isn't entertaining. If you wanna send that guiy a message, quit wasting time and kick his ass. If you aren't gonna back up your words and actions, skate back to the bench with your tail between your legs and let the game continue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now don't start getting silly :rolleyes:

Why not? They are as legal as body checks, yet for some reason the body check requires a player to DEFEND THEIR HONORZ. Why the distinction?

Micah: Howe didn't say anything about legal body checks did he? Injuring players and then destroying them after the fact is not in the same league as this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gotta fight after every clean hit now. its a new rule. its lame.

QFT

and this is effin disgusting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree. If you're reasonably tough, you don't let your teammate get lit up, legal or not, without a little punnishment in hopes that next time, the hitter hesitates. This is NOT new stuff. Semenko and McSorely used to fight people for breathing on Gretzky too hard. There has never been an understood requirement for a hit to be dirty in order for a fight to spring from it. If you're going to throw your body around, that's great, just be ready for the people who don't appreciate such.

And to whoever responded re stevens - very, VERY few of his fights were in response to dirty hits - they were in response to big, clean hits.

I agree with this 100%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My point of posting this video is to show that fighting after what could be deemed a clean hit is certainly not some new phenomenon

EDIT - man do I miss that passion/intensity in those days!

Um, I don't think that is a good video to plead your case with. That was not a legal hit...

(But I do agree with you in the first place. The game has evolved.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why not? They are as legal as body checks, yet for some reason the body check requires a player to DEFEND THEIR HONORZ. Why the distinction?

Did anyone ever say anything about defending another player's honor or are you just making stuff up to argue against?

The clear distinction is that in the case of big hits, legal or not, it is not uncommon for players to get injured. It is relatively uncommon for a player to get injured as a direct result of a goal or pokecheck.

Micah: Howe didn't say anything about legal body checks did he? Injuring players and then destroying them after the fact is not in the same league as this.

He did not differentiate between legal and illegal hits iirc. Why would he have? It's the potential result - the possiblility of injury (and in Howe's case of personal embarassment - though I don't agree with that) that warranted the retaliation, not the fact that a rule was or wasn't broken. It has never been a hockey player's job to punnish others for breaking rules on the ice, however it has long been considered part of a hockey player's job to protect and defend his teammates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which Callahan we talkin' bout here?

I think Tommy Callahan

TommyBoy_Still_PK_422.jpg

You know big Tom Callahan's son - The heir to Callahan Auto Parts

Callahan-Auto-parts-lg.gif

It's a pity Clutterbuck didn't hit Ott with that bodycheck and then fight Richards.

:lol: Isn't that the truth - that would have been pure entertainment.

My point of posting this video is to show that fighting after what could be deemed a clean hit is certainly not some new phenomenon

EDIT - man do I miss that passion/intensity in those days!

UM. . . . . . . . . . . . . Did you watch the whole video and listen to the commentary at the end "It might have been an elbow . . . It might have been an elbow, no doubt about that."

I'm not sure but I think Rule 46 says:

Rule 46 - Elbowing

46.1 Elbowing - Elbowing shall mean the use of an extended elbow in a manner that may or may not cause injury.

46.2 Minor Penalty - The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a minor penalty, based on the degree of violence, to a player or goalkeeper guilty of elbowing an opponent.

46.3 Major Penalty - A major penalty, at the discretion of the Referee, shall be imposed on any player or goalkeeper who uses his elbow to foul an opponent. A major penalty must be imposed under this rule for a foul resulting in an injury to the face or head of an opponent (see 46.5).

46.4 Match Penalty - The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a match penalty if, in his judgment, the player or goalkeeper attempted to or deliberately injured his opponent by elbowing.

46.5 Game Misconduct Penalty - When a major penalty is imposed under this rule for a foul resulting in an injury to the face or head of an opponent, a game misconduct penalty shall also be imposed.

46.6 Fines and Suspensions - When a major penalty and a game misconduct is assessed for a foul resulting in an injury to the face or head of an opponent, an automatic fine of one hundred dollars ($100) shall be imposed.

If deemed appropriate, supplementary discipline can be applied by the Commissioner at his discretion (refer to Rule 29).

So your example while entertaining and a great fight to watch doesn't really do much in the way of proving that there was retaliation in the past for clean hits . . . as there was no clean hit in the video.

(I do however agree that it has always been part of the game but think in the past it was a minor part of the game and has been occuring with more and more frequency all the time).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was asked in this another thread and felt it fit this conversation as well, the hit delivered btw was a clean hit, that the conversation was based on.

Really? If Ott put that same hit on Zetterberg sending him off on a stretcher and May went after Ott how pissed would you be?

Not as pissed but I have vested interest in this scenario. But when and why do May and Z end up on the same line?

But let me use a scenario a little closer to reality, as in something that actually happened.

Markov levels Stoll, as Dats is on his way to score, an Oiler starts a fight with Markov (like happened to Vancouver earlier) and Dats never scores.

Or

Better yet let me give you a scenario where I believe it was carried out correctly, yet another Wings scenario. Lappy hits Lids clean, yet actually does injure the man. (It is very important to note at this point in time we are no longer dealing with ifs/maybes/could have been/fairies/leprechauns or any other mythical way a hockey player "potentially" could have been hurt, I am talking about the 'C' getting injured for realz!)

Shifts later, not the second after the hit, the hero of LGW's Grit Crew (and an all around good guy for the record) Aaron Downey fights Lappy. Not because some one some day may get hurt if lappy kept hitting that way. NO because he hurt the 'C'.

The game is being broken up for a clean hit? Seriously, Zetta got hurt already on a clean hit this year, where was the upheaval for no retribution! GRRRRRRRR IZ WANT MYZ RETALIATIONZ!!!!!!!111111oneoneomg

If this was the case every time Krowall or Stuart leveled Umberger the Wings games would be near impossible to watch. (sure that was an exaggeration!)

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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0