• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Hockeytown0001

Chara's hit on Pacioretty

Rate this topic

306 posts in this topic

How many people have been hurt by the puck this year, do we change that to a nerf ball?

We can remove all the glass so no one can get hurt on it, the boards too, hell. the arena, its dangerous for players to have to drive there in traffic.

This was a fluke, these guys know that they can get hurt out there, ask Boyce and Modano.

That said, if this wasn't a Hab that got hurt, there would be no police involved.

Finnish Wing and Nightfall like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From TSN:

"but I don't think whether or not supplemental discipline was imposed would change what happened"

Weird for Bettman to say something like that. Isn't that the case with all the suspensions? No suspension is going to change something that has already happened. I thought they are meant to prevent something from happening again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, now that the police are involved, this story made headlines again. Another shining moment for hockey. Thanks Montreal. You elevated an unfortunate borderline hit to the Bertuzzi incident, and once again hockey looks like a bunch of barbarians skating around braining one another without punishment.

mjlegend likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My God, Canada is making this out to be an international incident. It was just a hit on a bad spot on the ice with a horrible outcome.

Hey what's wrong with Canada :sly:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sooo this gets 3 games and I am guessing it's the "intent" right? That lovely word we have heard the past few days and even the past few seasons. But how after Bolland spins around, stays on his feet and continues to play does this warrant 3 and the Chara hit none???? Please do not tell me intent....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGLoXMmwzBU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sooo this gets 3 games and I am guessing it's the "intent" right? That lovely word we have heard the past few days and even the past few seasons. But how after Bolland spins around, stays on his feet and continues to play does this warrant 3 and the Chara hit none???? Please do not tell me intent....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGLoXMmwzBU

It's intent :hehe:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's intent :hehe:

There is rules for blindside hits, headshots, hits from behind etc. so they don't even have to be intented. Players know the rules. In the Chara-case only rule that was broken was the interference and there was no intention to anything else.

I don't see how the method of punishing should be any different in hockey than it is for real life. In real life intent means a lot. Why should it mean nothing in hockey then?

Or better yet, let's try a year in real life without intent meaning anything. Wouldn't it be fun if every accident would get the same punishment than a planned murder? Yayyy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about the police getting invovled, or even if it was a dirty hit. It was a routine play.

However, I never played hockey for a team, so I'm not sure if it's possible, but it certainly looked like Chara just tried to pinch him and shove him. It's totally reasonable to assume he wasn't thinking about the stanchion.

Regardless, I doubt the cops find anything criminal in this, dirty or not. Nothing would stand up in court because of that question of intent.

At any rate it's not an OBVIOUS intent to injure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gettin the cops involved is a joke right?? ffs this is HOCKEY. head shots have always been a part of the game... i didnt hear ppl cryin then lindros career was ended shortly because of them. its up to the players to police themselves..... and if they wanna go for each others heads then clearly thats what theyre gonna do. to involve the police is completely ridic tho wasnt even taht cheapt of a play. I think the refs got this one right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is rules for blindside hits, headshots, hits from behind etc. so they don't even have to be intented. Players know the rules. In the Chara-case only rule that was broken was the interference and there was no intention to anything else.

I don't see how the method of punishing should be any different in hockey than it is for real life. In real life intent means a lot. Why should it mean nothing in hockey then?

Or better yet, let's try a year in real life without intent meaning anything. Wouldn't it be fun if every accident would get the same punishment than a planned murder? Yayyy!

I was joking around with Hank there ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got through about a page and a half before I couldn't read anymore without posting.

A) If this happens anywhere other than Montreal the NHL doesn't have to deal with the threats of losing sponsorships

B) For the "he knew what he was doing" crowd...he didn't. By no means am I bragging but I know how the internet works; I've played junior a hockey - and in all honesty probably a higher level of hockey than most everyone here - and the game moves extremely fast even at that level. I can imagine how fast it must be at the NHL level. That being said, you don't have time to think on the ice. If you think you are dead in the water, plain and simple. The game of hockey is knowing where to be and sub-consciously knowing what to do in that situation. This is why goalies, and I know firsthand, have reflexes as quick as cats (thanks sports science!) or at least the good ones haha.

But you either have this, or you don't. And that's what makes the best players the best. If you were to personally ask Hank or Pavel what they were thinking when they made so and so play I would be willing to bet their answer would be I don't know. Or they are just gonna feed you the same lines of bulls*** they give reporters.

There will now be two sides to this if anyone replies. The people that have never played a game of hockey in their life and will argue to the death that he knew exactly what he was doing. And on the opposite end, the people that will agree with me as they have played hockey . I'm not trying to be a jerk by any means, it's one thing to watch and understand hockey but it's totally different to have played the game and understand it.

C) I would not have given a penalty, saw nothing wrong with it. But for the sake of it, let's call it interference.

D) Why can't we be friends?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got through about a page and a half before I couldn't read anymore without posting.

A) If this happens anywhere other than Montreal the NHL doesn't have to deal with the threats of losing sponsorships

B) For the "he knew what he was doing" crowd...he didn't. By no means am I bragging but I know how the internet works; I've played junior a hockey - and in all honesty probably a higher level of hockey than most everyone here - and the game moves extremely fast even at that level. I can imagine how fast it must be at the NHL level. That being said, you don't have time to think on the ice. If you think you are dead in the water, plain and simple. The game of hockey is knowing where to be and sub-consciously knowing what to do in that situation. This is why goalies, and I know firsthand, have reflexes as quick as cats (thanks sports science!) or at least the good ones haha.

But you either have this, or you don't. And that's what makes the best players the best. If you were to personally ask Hank or Pavel what they were thinking when they made so and so play I would be willing to bet their answer would be I don't know. Or they are just gonna feed you the same lines of bulls*** they give reporters.

There will now be two sides to this if anyone replies. The people that have never played a game of hockey in their life and will argue to the death that he knew exactly what he was doing. And on the opposite end, the people that will agree with me as they have played hockey . I'm not trying to be a jerk by any means, it's one thing to watch and understand hockey but it's totally different to have played the game and understand it.

C) I would not have given a penalty, saw nothing wrong with it. But for the sake of it, let's call it interference.

D) Why can't we be friends?

yea your right because the game moves fast there has never been intent to injure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From TSN:

As players from around the league continue to voice their opinions on Zdeno Chara's hit on Max Pacioretty, San Jose Sharks centre Joe Thornton has taken a different angle in his most recent comments.

Speaking to the Globe and Mail, the usually-reserved Thornton suggested that Chara's club, the Boston Bruins, tends to receive favourable treatment from the NHL when it comes to discipline matters.

"It's just something with Boston," Thornton told the Globe and Mail. "It just seems like they have a horseshoe. We've seen the [Milan] Lucic cross-check to the head [of Maxim Lapierre] earlier, and there's no disciplinary thing."

...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

anyone have quotes from RED WINGS players on the hit? practically looking for Lidstrom's take on it.. post here if you seen it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The police?

This is turning into a ******* circus. All because Montreal has thrown a hissy fit over an unfortunate but legal hockey play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From TSN:

But why wouldn't Gregory Campbell treat the Bruins the same as other teams?

Sorry, I meant Colin Campbell. Greg is the bruins player. Colin is the the league's disciplinarian. I get those two names mixed up some time.

Hmm, Colin campbell and Gregory Campbell, wonder if there's any relation? <_<

Edited by haroldsnepsts
AtomicPunk likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts on the hit, Definitely interference, which was the penalty assessed, 5 min major for interference as a result of the injury, I believe the game misconduct came from the fact the refs felt the hit was avoidable. And that is the part I have issue with Chara's decision to follow thru on the hit, the hit was avoidable and unnecessary, both players were already out of the play as far as the puck was concerned and the hit had no meaning to the game. I believe Chara knew exactly where he was on the ice, and I also believe he intended to dump Pacioretty into the players bench. I don't think he intended to hurt him! I still believe there should have been a suspension for the desision to follow thru on an unnecessary hit!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But why wouldn't Gregory Campbell treat the Bruins the same as other teams?

Sorry, I meant Colin Campbell. Greg is the bruins player. Colin is the the league's disciplinarian. I get those two names mixed up some time.

Hmm, Colin campbell and Gregory Campbell, wonder if there's any relation? <_<

Dunno if you're being facetious with your last line, but Gregory is Colin's son...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dunno if you're being facetious with your last line, but Gregory is Colin's son...

That was indeed complete and utter sarcasm on harold's part.

Finnish Wing likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where are all the conspiracy police to put a tin foil hat on Joe Thornton?

From TSN:

Commissioner Gary Bettman will be the face of the National Hockey League for a while yet, negotiating a five-year contract extension last November, The Globe and Mail reported on Friday.

According to the newspaper, the nine-member executive committee unanimously approved the extension.

The Globe adds that one of the biggest backers to get Bettman the extension was Boston Bruins owner Jeremy Jacobs, who is the league's chairman of the board of governors. As chairman, one of Jacobs's duties is to keep the commissioner and the other key executives under contract.

...

Jeremy Jacobs is allowed to carry a lot of clout over certain matters.

Question is, did Chara intentionally mean to hurt Pacioretty?

Question is, could Chara have eased up on the play?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But why wouldn't Gregory Campbell treat the Bruins the same as other teams?

Sorry, I meant Colin Campbell. Greg is the bruins player. Colin is the the league's disciplinarian. I get those two names mixed up some time.

Hmm, Colin campbell and Gregory Campbell, wonder if there's any relation? <_<

Colin Campbell is not allowed to a part of any disciplinary hearing/call involving Boston. Murphy (forget his first name) becomes the head disciplinarian in any case thereafter

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