81 replies to this topic

[jollymania]

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.

[micah]

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.

[Doc Holliday]

Now don't start getting silly

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.

[akustyk]

gotta fight after every clean hit now. its a new rule. its lame.

QFT

and this is effin disgusting.

[Hockeymom1960]

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%.

[RedStormRising]

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.)

[micah]

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.

[Frozen-Man]

Which Callahan we talkin' bout here?

I think Tommy Callahan



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

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

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).

[Swayze]

...I was hoping this was gonna be MIKE Richards.

[Opie]

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!)

[F.Michael]

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 ...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.

[Frozen-Man]

Truth be told I didn't catch the last 30 or so seconds ...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!

[micah]

Great video though either way!

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

[F.Michael]

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 ).

[Doc Holliday]

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.

[F.Michael]

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.

[BlueMonk]

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.

[ManLuv4Clears]

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.

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.

[micah]

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.

[F.Michael]

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!!!