• 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

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:

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).

Truth be told I didn't catch the last 30 or so seconds :blush: ...Yeah - it did look like an elbow got up on the slo-mo replay.

That said I'm pretty certain Clark would've gone after McSorely regardless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Truth be told I didn't catch the last 30 or so seconds :blush: ...Yeah - it did look like an elbow got up on the slo-mo replay.

That said I'm pretty certain Clark would've gone after McSorely regardless.

Lol, yeah that's what I figured (and I agree Clark would have gone after him anyway), it just made me chuckle after I watched the whole thing so I thought I'd harass you about it. Great video though either way! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great video though either way! :)

I dunno man, it looked like the flow of the game might have been disrupted.;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lol, yeah that's what I figured (and I agree Clark would have gone after him anyway), it just made me chuckle after I watched the whole thing so I thought I'd harass you about it. Great video though either way! :)

Funny thing about that video; I have a soft-spot for the Maple Leafs so naturally I was watching this game - though on ESPN...I remember the hit, and fight like it was yesterday - though I don't ever recall the ESPN crew calling McSorley out on the elbow like the CBC crew had (this is why I posted the vid - thinking I'll prove everyone here how smart I am :crazy: ).

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

So because it is possible for a player to get injured there should be someone to fight back. Should we completely ignore whether the player gets injured on the play and just have our guys go after on every big hit?

Also the honor thing seems to be the only actual reason I could think of as to why someone would want to fight after a legal body check, since a guy challenging isn't going to stop a Stevens or Clutterbuck from laying the hits. He could even turn down the fight.

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.

Why does the potential result warrant the retaliation? Why?

If it is clean it is clean. If he gets injured then that is a different story. If you aren't the guy getting hit then respect it for what it is and have your players fight their own battles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why does the potential result warrant the retaliation? Why?

If it is clean it is clean. If he gets injured then that is a different story. If you aren't the guy getting hit then respect it for what it is and have your players fight their own battles.

Does this really need to be answered?

Okay then...Clean hit or not - unless you want your star players on the IR - it may not be such a bad idea to let your opponents know that you won't stand for these types of hits...Sure there'll be the occasional bump along the boards that could result in an injury (see Franzen), but when a guy steamrolls your best player - something should be done, and a message needs to be sent in the form of a few punches to the guilty party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay then...Clean hit or not - unless you want your star players on the IR - it may not be such a bad idea to let your opponents know that you won't stand for these types of hits...Sure there'll be the occasional bump along the boards that could result in an injury (see Franzen), but when a guy steamrolls your best player - something should be done, and a message needs to be sent in the form of a few punches to the guilty party.

It's not just about avenging the hit, it's about physical intimidation, pure and simple. Intimidation is a part of hockey. It's a violent sport. If you can deter someone from hitting your players by roughing him up, you win. If he doesn't back down, he wins. But let's watch it all play out and enjoy the show. More confrontations mean more violence, so we all win.

Simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not just about avenging the hit, it's about physical intimidation, pure and simple. Intimidation is a part of hockey. It's a violent sport. If you can deter someone from hitting your players by roughing him up, you win. If he doesn't back down, he wins. But let's watch it all play out and enjoy the show. More confrontations mean more violence, so we all win.

Simple.

There it is. Someone that knows that game. :clap:

Btw guys, fighting after hitting a star player on a team has always been in the game. It's the scuffles after the 3rd and 4th liners get lit up that are becoming more prevelant today. I'm all for sticking up for your team's best players, head down or not. The role players are another story. In the video at hand, Richards being a top player in Dallas I have no issue with what Ott did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So because it is possible for a player to get injured there should be someone to fight back. Should we completely ignore whether the player gets injured on the play and just have our guys go after on every big hit?

We should punish wreckless acts whether they are within the rules or not, whether our buddy gets hurt or not. Fighting to punnish an act that hurt your teammate is all well and good, but fighting in hopes of planting a seed in your opponent's head that will get him to hessitate or hold back just a bitnext time, preventing an injury is better. Deterance has always been part of the tough guy's job, it isn't JUST punnishment.

Why does the potential result warrant the retaliation? Why?

For the same reason that we arrest people who drive drunk without hurting people or fire their guns in the air on the 4th of July - because theose behaviors are dangerous and sometimes, though not always, that early punnishment will prevent a worse event down the road.

If you aren't the guy getting hit then respect it for what it is and have your players fight their own battles.

Your concept of "team" is different than mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not just about avenging the hit, it's about physical intimidation, pure and simple. Intimidation is a part of hockey. It's a violent sport. If you can deter someone from hitting your players by roughing him up, you win. If he doesn't back down, he wins. But let's watch it all play out and enjoy the show. More confrontations mean more violence, so we all win.

Simple.

YES!YES!!YES!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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.

you are fight horny, you take it over the top

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!

that hit was major boderline

Edited by jollymania

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not just about avenging the hit, it's about physical intimidation, pure and simple. Intimidation is a part of hockey. It's a violent sport. If you can deter someone from hitting your players by roughing him up, you win. If he doesn't back down, he wins. But let's watch it all play out and enjoy the show. More confrontations mean more violence, so we all win.

Simple.

I'm sure Brad Stuart and Niklas Kronwall get really intimidated when guys try to fight them and they say "no thanks".

The concept is crap because of the fact hitters don't have to "answer" to some guy who wants to fight them.

Micah: I've played hockey enough to know what it is like to be a team player. Just because I don't need someone to fight my battles for me doesn't mean I don't understand. Also your comparison between a legal body check and drunk driving (which kills people every year) is laughable at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Micah: I've played hockey enough to know what it is like to be a team player. Just because I don't need someone to fight my battles for me doesn't mean I don't understand. Also your comparison between a legal body check and drunk driving (which kills people every year) is laughable at best.

I suspect that even you understood that I was not making a "comparison" between the gravity of a big clean hockey hit and drunk driving, but merely using drunk driving to illustrate that punnishing wreckless acts even when they happen to not result in injurry is not without precedent.

Watching someone blow up your teamates with big,legal hits and doing nothing about it untill one of your teammates gets injured is not being a good teammate. good teammates do what they can to prevent that injury. sometimes they'll be able to, sometimes they won't, but they do what they can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bigger players always look out for their smaller teammates. It has been this way since the beginning of time. It's a natural law of hockey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigger players always look out for their smaller teammates. It has been this way since the beginning of time. It's a natural law of hockey.

No. It just started 2 years ago. It's disgusting! It ruins the flow of the game.

Efforts to discourage your opponent from injuring your teammate should not start until after your teammates gets injured, because that's when those efforts are most effective.

I never change my car's oil until after my engine throws a rod. I once knew a guy who changed his oil every 3000 miles and his engine still failed, so that's proof that changing your oil is ineffective in preventing engine dammage. Catastrophic engine failure is part of owning a car, it cannot be prevented, you just have to accept it. Besides, scheduling oil changes disrupts the flow of my life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. It just started 2 years ago. It's disgusting! It ruins the flow of the game.

Efforts to discourage your opponent from injuring your teammate should not start until after your teammates gets injured, because that's when those efforts are most effective.

I never change my car's oil until after my engine throws a rod. I once knew a guy who changed his oil every 3000 miles and his engine still failed, so that's proof that changing your oil is ineffective in preventing engine dammage. Catastrophic engine failure is part of owning a car, it cannot be prevented, you just have to accept it. Besides, scheduling oil changes disrupts the flow of my life.

You make the world's worst analogies, first it was akin to drunk driving now not changing your oil.

Seriously you like fights we get it, really we do!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You make the world's worst analogies, first it was akin to drunk driving now not changing your oil.

What specifically makes them bad? Anologies are supposed to be similarities between dissimilar acts or objects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You make the world's worst analogies, first it was akin to drunk driving now not changing your oil.

Seriously you like fights we get it, really we do!

and most people want fighting in the game but prefer not to gt all tingly at every hugfest, almost fight, or rough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and most people want fighting in the game but prefer not to gt all tingly at every hugfest, almost fight, or rough.

Who do you suppose gets tingly at every hugfest, almost fight, or rough? I hate all of those. If you're gonna go, make it count, otherwise shut your mouth and play hockey. I think I've been pretty clear on my feelings there. Keep up.

Edited by micah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who do you suppose gets tingly at every hugfest, almost fight, or rough? I hate all of those. If you're gonna go, make it count, otherwise shut your mouth and play hockey.

I agree 100% on this, I have no problem with guys throwing down at all.

As I have said in this thread, I think the way Downey handled the Lappy hit was and has been the way the league deals with these types of hits, and how it should be handled.

There is no point to breaking up the game because some one laid out a clean hit, it(hitting) is as much a part of the game as scoring and passing, stopping the game because of a big clean hit can and has ruined scoring opportunities and other parts of the game, because supposedly now there is a class of un-hittable guys!

Again I ask where is the breaking point (a question you have avoided multiple times) what hit is not considered off limits, does it become like the QB in NFL if you touch him it is a penalty, only the penalty in Hockey is you get punched for a clean play that is apart of normal actions of the game?

EDIT (spelling and this):

Since there is a class of un-hittable is there also a class of un-punchable?

I mean if you can't hit Lids, can he be punched if he hits Crosby? Can Dats get roughed up because he hit Malkin? Ovie, is he exempt to retaliation because he is also the C, franchise, and most talented player? Can he run around making dirty hits and be untouchable all at the same time?

Edited by Opie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dunno man, it looked like the flow of the game might have been disrupted.;)

I don't recall ever arguing that a fight like that did anything to distrupt the flow of the game. I wasn't discussing that at all. Nice try attempting to pin me to an argument that I never made. My general point is that I see no need to go around verbally dry humping any player who ever drops the gloves for any reason at all. You almost never discuss any other aspect of the game but rather instead had infatuation with only the fighting aspect of the game. 95% of your posts are about how fighting in hockey is the greatest thing ever (with most of those also bashing everything about the Wings).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't recall ever arguing that a fight like that did anything to distrupt the flow of the game. I wasn't discussing that at all. Nice try attempting to pin me to an argument that I never made. My general point is that I see no need to go around verbally dry humping any player who ever drops the gloves for any reason at all. You almost never discuss any other aspect of the game but rather instead had infatuation with only the fighting aspect of the game. 95% of your posts are about how fighting in hockey is the greatest thing ever (with most of those also bashing everything about the Wings).

I wasn't attempting to pin that argument on you (though I can understand in hindsight why it might have come off that way, what with me responding to you and all).

Fighting is, I think, the most interesting part of the game to discuss, and a large part of what makes hockey different than the other North American professional team sports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again I ask where is the breaking point (a question you have avoided multiple times) what hit is not considered off limits, does it become like the QB in NFL if you touch him it is a penalty, only the penalty in Hockey is you get punched for a clean play that is apart of normal actions of the game?

I suppose the scale is sliding based on who hit who, how and when. Everything fight related is circumstance related. I'm sorry I can't give you an answer that's as simple as what you seem to be asking for, but there are too many variables.

Since there is a class of un-hittable is there also a class of un-punchable?

I mean if you can't hit Lids, can he be punched if he hits Crosby? Can Dats get roughed up because he hit Malkin? Ovie, is he exempt to retaliation because he is also the C, franchise, and most talented player? Can he run around making dirty hits and be untouchable all at the same time?

Same answer, really. There are very few circumstances under which a Lidstrom or a Datsyuk or a Crosby should expect to get punched, and that's because those guys don't run around recklessly hitting people, legal or not. None of those guys are likely to injure an opponent by their reckless (though perhaps legal) play.

To answer your question though - if Lids hits Crosby in a manner which Crosby's teammates think was out-of-line, then of course Lids should expect someone to feed him a few...just as Crosby should expect someone to go after him if he recklessly endangers Lids or Dats. all of these scenerios are unlikely, not entirly because we are talking about superstars, but because these guys simply don't play the game that Clutterbuck does. When you hit like Cal did, you should expect to be asked to back it up, like Cal was.

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