Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Ryan Miller's opinion on Milan Lucic


  • Please log in to reply
141 replies to this topic

#101 Konnan511

Konnan511

    #FreePulkkinen

  • HoF Booster
  • 10,295 posts
  • Location:Traverse City, Mi

Posted 14 November 2011 - 11:08 PM

The way things are called now, I expected to see a suspension. If Shawn Thornton runs Ryan Miller, however, he gets 5 games.

Agreed. Shanny has shown his hand now. Star players get preferential treatment.
The Best Of BC
HankthaTank
- Squirrels, they hate to be thrown. / Why is the magical unicorn named Brian... Jedi - I just downloaded the "kids" book, "Go the F--k to Sleep" as narrated by Samuel L. Jackson on my kindle. I am now ready to be a daddy. / *Checks Router* No, I'm positive I didn't hit the "Wings Defense Sucks" button. Electrophile - I'm just glad the Wings were able to win despite the Curse of Brian. ACallToArms - I think Trey needs to put something about payroll tax and deferred income in his sig... Edicius - I'd rather [have] a soundbite of me saying "I like (man sausage)" rather than "I like Crosby".

#102 Buppy

Buppy

    1st Line All-Star

  • Silver Booster
  • 1,980 posts

Posted 14 November 2011 - 11:18 PM

To the bold, that's why it's a "charging" penalty. If it were anyone other than a goalie that's not even a penalty.

To the underlined, this is made up. You have no basis for concluding he wanted to injure Miller. Try and use this logic to prove someone's intent in a court and see how well that logic holds up. Also, to note, Miller did not just leave the game when the hit happened. He played another 26 minutes of ice time, surely was evaluated at the first intermission, and cleared to keep playing, until leaving after the 2nd. Lucic is not a weak hitter and if this guy wanted to injure Miller with a hit he would have certainly done plenty of damage. Miller's injuries came from the fall, not the hit -- somehow, he was capable enough to swing his stick at Lucic in response, and he's damn lucky he didn't connect or that would have got him a suspension.

It is not reasonable to just say someone had an intent to injure.. prove the intent. Hitting Miller is not proof of an intent to injure without making synonymous hitting someone with intending to injure. An intent t injure is not an intent to hit, it's an intent to injure someone. Seriously, it's hard to fathom what the difficulty in discerning the two is. The only proof here is that it's a charging penalty.

You realize there is a provision in the charging rule allowing for supplementary discipline, right? You keep saying it was a charging penalty as if that means it shouldn't have been a suspension.

You're right that you can't prove intent. However, you can infer intent by looking at the actions and the likely result. A hard hit on someone in a vulnerable position is reasonbly likely to cause injury, therefore it is reasonable to infer that intentionally hitting (hard) a vulnerable player is intent to injure.

Regardless of what you or others think of the rule, the fact is goalies are not fair game. That means we can reasonably assume Miller did not feel (and should not have had) any need to protect himself from a hit. In my opinion, because goalies have that protection and therefore do not expect to be hit like that, goalies should always be considered vulnerable. So in my opinion, any hard, intentional hit on a goalie should be considered intent to injure and warrant a suspension.

I understand that it is subjective and not everyone will subscribe to the same logic. However, remember that a lack of 'proof' of intent is not proof of no intent. Also remember that this is a hockey league, not a court of law. We're not talking about sending someone to jail. We don't need to meet so strict a burden of proof.

This was a chance for the league to prove they are willing to suspend a star player (besides Pronger) as well as deter future actions they obviously do not want to see in game (goalies getting hit). In my opnion, Shanny missed on this one.

Edited by Buppy, 15 November 2011 - 01:57 AM.


#103 Bring Back The Bruise Bros

Bring Back The Bruise Bros

    RIP Probie

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,691 posts

Posted 15 November 2011 - 12:34 AM

Agreed. Shanny has shown his hand now. Star players get preferential treatment.

Yep. And the s***show that is NHL disciplinary action resumes. If you're gonna suspend every player that makes contact with the head on a hit, punish the star players as well. If you're gonna let everything go, let even the enforcers get away with it. There's no consistency, at all. We all thought Shanny would change things. I'll admit I was fooled too. I thought he meant business. Now, if Brian McGrattan goes out and smokes Steve Mason while he's attempting to play the puck, there better be nof****** suspension. The next time the Sabres play the Bruins, if Patrick Kaleta runs Tim Thomas, there better be no suspension. Howf****** difficult is it? I have no problem with Lucic getting away with that. I have a problem when I know for a fact that guys get suspended for the last name on the back of their jersey.
"Ice hockey is a form of disorderly conduct in which the score is kept."

RIP Bob Probert
RIP Wade Belak
RIP Derek Boogaard
RIP Rick Rypien

#104 cnot19

cnot19

    2nd Line Scorer

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 544 posts
  • Location:New Jersey

Posted 15 November 2011 - 02:27 AM

Yep. And the s***show that is NHL disciplinary action resumes. If you're gonna suspend every player that makes contact with the head on a hit, punish the star players as well. If you're gonna let everything go, let even the enforcers get away with it. There's no consistency, at all. We all thought Shanny would change things. I'll admit I was fooled too. I thought he meant business. Now, if Brian McGrattan goes out and smokes Steve Mason while he's attempting to play the puck, there better be nof****** suspension. The next time the Sabres play the Bruins, if Patrick Kaleta runs Tim Thomas, there better be no suspension. Howf****** difficult is it? I have no problem with Lucic getting away with that. I have a problem when I know for a fact that guys get suspended for the last name on the back of their jersey.



Agree with your post 100%, so far I have hardly been a fan of Shanahan. Looking forward to the remaining buffalo boston match ups to see if anything transpires, however knowing how soft buffalo is i doubt it
Get me a real fourth line Kenny!

#105 Bring Back The Bruise Bros

Bring Back The Bruise Bros

    RIP Probie

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,691 posts

Posted 15 November 2011 - 03:03 AM

Agree with your post 100%, so far I have hardly been a fan of Shanahan. Looking forward to the remaining buffalo boston match ups to see if anything transpires, however knowing how soft buffalo is i doubt it

We know Thomas isn't afraid to scrap. Miller may need to back his mouth up. Like I've said, Buffalo is pretty soft outside of Mr. McCormick.
"Ice hockey is a form of disorderly conduct in which the score is kept."

RIP Bob Probert
RIP Wade Belak
RIP Derek Boogaard
RIP Rick Rypien

#106 Crashnburnluder

Crashnburnluder

    Crashnburnluder

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,264 posts
  • Location:Lancater, Pennsylvania

Posted 15 November 2011 - 03:11 AM

So the latest conspiracy is that Lucic intended to take Miller out..

I've seen goalies hit behind the net countless times when playing the puck. If they get bowled over, in my opinion it's their fault, the rules often disagree with me here, but still, I don't think you quite understand what any levels of intent are.


I will first will say I never said it was intent to injure all I did was ask the question. I will openly say I don't think he went to Injure Miller, but was his intent to take Miller (a non eligible player to be hit) out of the play with a hit, yes for sure. I understand what your saying about goalies behind the net. My biggest thing with that is I feel if a goalie is putting there body in between the opposing player and the puck then yes there is a good chance he is going to get hit cause he is using his body to shield the puck. This play had no where near the same situation. Miller skated out to the puck and dumbed it away. Never used his body to shield the puck and got rid of the puck right away.

First is the situation behind the play. They were going for the puck. Lucic braced himself and made the hit. The only reason this is even a penalty is because contact occurred and Lucic made no effort whatsoever to get out of the way.


I will disagree with one thing, bracing your self for contact and making a hit are two different things. If Lucic braced him self for contact and incidental collision that couldn't be avoided and he protected him self to avoid injury because of the collision with Miller thats one thing. Its the fact that he did what he could to flatten him. He never tried avoiding him, didn't try to protect him self or Miller. He went for the hit and thats clear as day. You don't consider it protecting your self for an "incidental" collision by turning it into a hit to plow over the other player in a vulnerable position.

Second, intent to injure, might wanna re-watch the Flames/Wings series in the 2004 playoffs of Ville Niemenen skating into the crease and elbowing Curtis Joseph in the head. That is an intent to injure. This hit with Lucic on Miller.. give me an effing break.


Once again I never said it was intent to injure but I will say that there was definitely intent to hit a player that wasn't eligible to be hit and he was hurt because of it. I asked the question if it isn't labeled under "Intent to injure" then what is it. Charging yes thats what it was called, but charging a player with out the puck, especially one that can not be hit. My problem with the play is the point of hitting is to separate the player and the puck, and erase him from the play (basically legalizing a hit a second or two after release of the puck). The problem with this play is Miller did not have the puck and he isn't Legally allowed to be hit. So looking at the intent rule, what other Intent could Lucic have besides getting a shot in on Miller. He had his chance to get a blow in on Miller and took it. So what other intent could he have besides the Intent to take a run at a player that isn't even legal to hit?

I like a good debate Shoreline so hope this doesn't come off snarky or anything like that...

Edited by Crashnburnluder, 15 November 2011 - 03:18 AM.


#107 dragonballgtz

dragonballgtz

    Yu-Gi-HOE

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,407 posts

Posted 15 November 2011 - 06:30 AM

Okay and for the millionth time, in the NHL RULEBOOK, they are not fair game. Period. Its really not that hard to understand.

Did I say they were fair game? I said they SHOULD be fair game.

My sentence wasn't that hard to understand.

#108 b.shanafan14

b.shanafan14

    One good Swede deserves another!

  • Silver Booster
  • 2,870 posts
  • Location:Upper Peninsula, Michigan

Posted 15 November 2011 - 07:56 AM

lol.. what? If you can suggest that Lucic intended to hit him therefore it's an intent to injure then that infers every hit is an intent to injure if the hit results in an injury. That sounds quite ridiculous. "Kronwalled" is synonymous with "Intent to injure", sorry Kronner.

An intent to injure penalty cannot 100% without error be called because sometimes the intent isn't as obvious. An intent to injure penalty is one of the more major penalties in the game someone can get, so there had better be some pretty damn clear indication that was intended if one is going to be assessed this penalty and the suspension that inevitably would result. This was not the case even remotely with Lucic. He did intend to hit Miller simply because of the technicality of a charging penalty whereby it states that if he doesn't make any reasonable attempt not to hit the goalie outside the crease it's charging.

It is not only Shanny that saw it that way, it was the officials who were officiating the game, who actually got a call right for a change. Lucic was not smiling like hur hur I made a hit on a goalie /trollface, he had Sabres players in his face and was smiling because every single hit of any sort these days needs a stupid ass reaction by teammates. I would laugh too at those idiots.


Haha you don't actually read anything, do you? Quit picking a sentence and applying your own foolish context so that it fits your argument loosely, and address the conversation as a whole. Like I said previously, this does not apply and should not apply to deciding if a clean hit receives a penalty. And to continue to compare this to a skater on skater incident is the most ridiculous thing in this thread. This is intending, and doing a damn good job of achieving a hard open-ice hit on a goaltender without the puck.

By your argument, the Bertuzzi-Moore incident (since apparently we're just making whatever wacky, unrelated, irrelevant references we can since we don't have any hard precedents, right) was a roughing penalty and nothing more, because hey, he got penalized right? And he didn't mean to crumple him like a piece of paper. Sure he meant to hit him, but come on, would he mean to do that? And then all the Avs jumped in on him and Moore, he couldn't control that. That was all just a misunderstanding, he should have served his two and been back out there.

"That's good tough hockey, just like any other hit! Quit being a wimp. There was no intent to injure, therefore he is fine hitting a protected, unhittable player who just so happens to be the most important to the opposition's season. And if he is injured and misses a few games, that's not my fault, I didn't intend for it." - Shoreline (since you did such a good job at putting words in my mouth :))

As far as I'm concerned, you're probably closer if you're comparing it to a hit on a linesman then you are a skater on skater hit. :P

Edited by b.shanafan14, 15 November 2011 - 07:57 AM.


#109 cusimano_brothers

cusimano_brothers

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,612 posts
  • Location:Niagara Falls, ON

Posted 15 November 2011 - 08:07 AM

Fumble.

"Mess up tomorrow, don't mess up now".

- Harry James Benson, CBE.


#110 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 16,931 posts

Posted 15 November 2011 - 10:05 AM

You realize there is a provision in the charging rule allowing for supplementary discipline, right? You keep saying it was a charging penalty as if that means it shouldn't have been a suspension.

You're right that you can't prove intent. However, you can infer intent by looking at the actions and the likely result. A hard hit on someone in a vulnerable position is reasonbly likely to cause injury, therefore it is reasonable to infer that intentionally hitting (hard) a vulnerable player is intent to injure.

Regardless of what you or others think of the rule, the fact is goalies are not fair game. That means we can reasonably assume Miller did not feel (and should not have had) any need to protect himself from a hit. In my opinion, because goalies have that protection and therefore do not expect to be hit like that, goalies should always be considered vulnerable. So in my opinion, any hard, intentional hit on a goalie should be considered intent to injure and warrant a suspension.

I understand that it is subjective and not everyone will subscribe to the same logic. However, remember that a lack of 'proof' of intent is not proof of no intent. Also remember that this is a hockey league, not a court of law. We're not talking about sending someone to jail. We don't need to meet so strict a burden of proof.

This was a chance for the league to prove they are willing to suspend a star player (besides Pronger) as well as deter future actions they obviously do not want to see in game (goalies getting hit). In my opnion, Shanny missed on this one.

Exactly.

And in several instances where Shanny has handed out punishment, he made clear that while he doesn't think there was necessarily intent to injure, the play was so reckless that it in essence counts as intent. I'm pretty sure this was the case with Smith's hit. And an intent to injure penalty does not have to be called at the time for Shanahan to consider it in his ruling.

So Lucic didn't have to consciously be thinking "I want to hurt Miller while I have the chance." What he did was hit a player who was not eligible to be hit, which is a reckless play, and hardly surprising that Miller was hurt.

To be honest I don't know that it even warranted a suspension. I think it deserved a fine. But for Lucic to get no punishment shows that Shanahan is using a much different standard than he was early on. An illegal hit by a player who has been suspended in the past resulted in another player getting a concussion. Yet there was nothing more than a 2 minute penalty. That's surprising.

Edited by haroldsnepsts, 15 November 2011 - 10:06 AM.


#111 syntax

syntax

    Join the Empire!

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,885 posts
  • Location:Flint, MI

Posted 15 November 2011 - 10:36 AM

I'm just catching up with this mess. Great thread and good opinions/ideas/thoughts on both sides of this.

My take:

1. Lucic is dirty douchebag.
2. Lucic could've/should've avoided hit...no way he could've played the puck without contact with Miller.
3. While intent to injure is not provable, his douchebag grin after the play showed he hit Miller on purpose.
4. Sabres need to grow some balls. Talk is cheap, but I would've take a 4 game suspension if I'd been on the ice after my goalie was run like that. I would've speared Lucic's junk.
5. Shanahan totally dropped the ball, I'm disappointed.


I'd still like to see:

1. What Boston fans think about the hits (though I can guess)
2. Lucic get some karma payback sometime this season...don't care from whom.
The Vladinator He earned the NHL Plus/Minus Award in 1995-96, with a plus/minus difference of plus-60. The +60 has been the highest rating a player has finished with in the past 20 seasons, since Wayne Gretzky finished with a +70 in the 1986-87 NHL season

Pavel Datsyuk > x (where x is the name of any active hockey player)

#112 P. Marlowe

P. Marlowe

    4th Line Heel

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,538 posts
  • Location:Finland

Posted 15 November 2011 - 10:40 AM

TSN.ca

"I think Buffalo's comments are irresponsible to suggest that it's open season," Shanahan said at the Hockey Hall of Fame induction ceremony. "I will have this warning for players: `It's not. If you run a goalie you're going to find yourself in the same situation that Lucic was today, you're going to have to explain yourself and you don't explain it sufficiently, and if I don't buy it, you're going to be suspended."'

(...)

Ultimately, he thinks a rule change will need to be made before he can suspend every player that collides with a goaltender.

"If they feel, as (Sabres GM Darcy Regier) suggests, that goalies are like quarterbacks and that their needs to be a higher standard in supplemental discipline (I'm open to that)," said Shanahan. "I'm not a policy-maker, but I'm a policy enforcer. If these guys want that I'm happy to enforce that policy.

"But I don't think that I can just go and do this because this happened to a great goaltender like Ryan Miller."

(...)

"I think the job is always going to be grey," said Shanahan. "It's not black and white because people have their own perspective. You could line up 100 Hall of Famers in this room and watch that (Lucic) hit and they could be 60-40 or 50-50 on what the decision should be. Fans will do that too. ... I feel that in the bigger picture we are changing player culture. Each and every specific decision will be dissected, good or bad.

"If I suspended Lucic I'm sure there would be a lot of people that thought it was the wrong decision, but I think the greater point in all of this is I see that players are reacting and responding."


"Finger-pointing is easy. In some cases, even therapeutic. Fans need to blame something,

because the outcome is so frustratingly out of their control."
-- Mitch Albom

| Terry Sawchuk & Johnny Bower | | Extra Protection | | "Luckies never cut my wind." | | Straight to the Goal | | Dodging Traffic |
| Tom Waits - Get Behind the Mule | | Mikael Samuelsson Forever | | Mike Grier? |


#113 Shoreline

Shoreline

    Panzerfaust

  • HoF Booster
  • 12,817 posts
  • Location:Brampton, ON

Posted 15 November 2011 - 11:14 AM

Haha you don't actually read anything, do you? Quit picking a sentence and applying your own foolish context so that it fits your argument loosely, and address the conversation as a whole. Like I said previously, this does not apply and should not apply to deciding if a clean hit receives a penalty. And to continue to compare this to a skater on skater incident is the most ridiculous thing in this thread. This is intending, and doing a damn good job of achieving a hard open-ice hit on a goaltender without the puck.

By your argument, the Bertuzzi-Moore incident (since apparently we're just making whatever wacky, unrelated, irrelevant references we can since we don't have any hard precedents, right) was a roughing penalty and nothing more, because hey, he got penalized right? And he didn't mean to crumple him like a piece of paper. Sure he meant to hit him, but come on, would he mean to do that? And then all the Avs jumped in on him and Moore, he couldn't control that. That was all just a misunderstanding, he should have served his two and been back out there.

"That's good tough hockey, just like any other hit! Quit being a wimp. There was no intent to injure, therefore he is fine hitting a protected, unhittable player who just so happens to be the most important to the opposition's season. And if he is injured and misses a few games, that's not my fault, I didn't intend for it." - Shoreline (since you did such a good job at putting words in my mouth :))

As far as I'm concerned, you're probably closer if you're comparing it to a hit on a linesman then you are a skater on skater hit. :P

Amongst straw men, I don't think I've seen such a retarded attempt at parodying a rather sincere opinion. The discussion you are replying to had to do with intent. It was obvious as day Bert had the intent of injuring a guy by following him around the ice hitting him in the back of the head, which somehow compares to this incident. I'm only awaiting your trifecta of stupid with an invocation of Godwin's law. :hysterical:

Let me try a b.shanahan14 analogy.

Lucic almost KILLED Miller! He should be sued worse than the fake lawsuit against Chara and the po-po should "charge" his ass in return! Overreaction über alles!

Edited by Shoreline, 15 November 2011 - 11:21 AM.


#114 Z Winged Dangler

Z Winged Dangler

    Part 3: Return of the Hammer Hands

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,199 posts
  • Location:Winnipeg, MB

Posted 15 November 2011 - 01:41 PM

if a goalie leaves his crease he should be fair game. if he's playing the puck, he is effectively a 3rd dman and should be subject to a good crunch now and again. been saying for years if goalies leave the net you should be able to hit them. i say add more hitting to the game instead of whining about every hit thrown and crying suspension.

"I play hockey, but I am not very good.  Can someone please tell me what it would take to sign with the Wings ? I can use a million or two."  ~ arag

 

Dan Cleary is an Xbox 360.  While good for a while, it's time for the new generation to take over.


#115 toby91_ca

toby91_ca

    Legend

  • Gold Booster
  • 8,476 posts

Posted 15 November 2011 - 01:47 PM

if a goalie leaves his crease he should be fair game. if he's playing the puck, he is effectively a 3rd dman and should be subject to a good crunch now and again. been saying for years if goalies leave the net you should be able to hit them. i say add more hitting to the game instead of whining about every hit thrown and crying suspension.

That's your opinion, which is fine, but the NHL currently disagrees with you and so do I. You can't make the goalies fair game because they are not equiped to absorb the body contact like any other player. It's not because they are wussies or anything like that, it's because of their equipment. They are much more prone to injury through body contact than anyone else....hence the rule. I have no problem at all with the rule, I'm just wondering if they want to consider no allowing goalies to leave their crease to play the puck. Not sure about that though as the limitations recently put on them as to when they can play the puck haven't been overwhelmingly positive.

#116 Shoreline

Shoreline

    Panzerfaust

  • HoF Booster
  • 12,817 posts
  • Location:Brampton, ON

Posted 15 November 2011 - 04:46 PM

That's your opinion, which is fine, but the NHL currently disagrees with you and so do I. You can't make the goalies fair game because they are not equiped to absorb the body contact like any other player. It's not because they are wussies or anything like that, it's because of their equipment. They are much more prone to injury through body contact than anyone else....hence the rule. I have no problem at all with the rule, I'm just wondering if they want to consider no allowing goalies to leave their crease to play the puck. Not sure about that though as the limitations recently put on them as to when they can play the puck haven't been overwhelmingly positive.

I'm sure he's aware that the NHL rules disagrees with him, but I do believe that the forum rules still allows for someone to debate if they think Miller should be fair game anyways despite the NHL's rules.

The trapezoid rule is just stupid, and, understandably, no goalie is going to like having any sort of strict limitations placed on where they can stand/move, although it makes it interesting adding this type of rule if they have to leave the crease area for an extra skater and then double back, say, on a turnover. That just seems like a mess in the making.

I would certainly be in favour of tearing up this ridiculous non-"fair game" rule the NHL implements. If a goalie wants to not protect the goal, and wants to make a play on the puck well away from his net, it should be his right to play the puck, and it should be his right to be hit like any other skater playing the puck.

It really sucks that Miller is going to be gone but I hope next time he thinks twice about going that far away from his crease to play the puck.

I also hate this:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=380513

Saying he felt fine after the hit, Miller continued playing through the end of the second period when he began experiencing tightness in his neck and fatigue. Backup Jhonas Enroth took over at the start of the third period.

The 2010 Vezina Trophy winner did stick around following the game to speak to the media, during which he called Lucic "gutless."

Miller revealed that he and the team went ahead with announcing he had a concussion in a bid to make a case that Lucic should be suspended.


The fact that he continued to play, then has issues, and suddenly comes out announcing the concussion with the intention of trying to sway the league into suspending Lucic, makes me shake my head in disgust.

Edited by Shoreline, 15 November 2011 - 04:52 PM.


#117 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 16,931 posts

Posted 15 November 2011 - 05:22 PM

<snip>

I also hate this:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=380513


The fact that he continued to play, then has issues, and suddenly comes out announcing the concussion with the intention of trying to sway the league into suspending Lucic, makes me shake my head in disgust.

Why?

The league is pretty clear about factoring injury into doling out punishment. If I'm a goalie and someone intentionally runs me like Lucic did and gives me a concussion, I'm sure not going to sit on that information when they're deciding what to do. It's not like Miller was faking it.

And that's on the Sabres team and medical staff for not catching the concussion or making him sit in the quiet room. Every player wants to play. What was he supposed to do when his neck tightened up and he felt weirdly fatigued?

From your link:

"I think he said what he had to say to avoid being suspended," Miller said, referring to Lucic having a hearing with NHL disciplinarian Brendan Shanahan on Monday. "It's the NHL, man. The guy can skate. He can stop. He can turn. He can pick his head up."

Pausing and then adding with a laugh, Miller said: "If he didn't see me then, I don't even know how that could happen."

In speaking with reporters for the first time since being diagnosed with a concussion and whiplash on Sunday, Miller chose his words carefully during a nine-minute interview after he sat out practice.

Miller provided no timetable for when he might be able to play, saying he's still feeling soreness in his neck and experiencing post-concussion-like symptoms.


Edited by haroldsnepsts, 15 November 2011 - 05:23 PM.


#118 Namtaru

Namtaru

    Rookie

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 121 posts
  • Location:Chicago, IL

Posted 15 November 2011 - 06:13 PM

Shoulda manned up like Thomas


#119 P. Marlowe

P. Marlowe

    4th Line Heel

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,538 posts
  • Location:Finland

Posted 15 November 2011 - 07:41 PM

NHL.com

Boston coach Claude Julien was asked about a possible alteration to the rule about contact with the goaltender or the possibility of limiting a goaltender's ability to move out of his crease.

"There's a difference between a hit and a collision. And that's always going to be a gray area in everybody's minds," Julien said. "Some people are going to call certain things a hit, some people are going call it a collision. I mean, as far as I'm concerned as a coach, I'll abide by any rule they want to put in there. If they say you can't touch him at all, then it's you can't touch him at all. If they keep the rule the way it is, then let's keep the rule the way it is.

(...)

New Jersey netminder Johan Hedberg will be tasked with facing the Bruins tonight. He doesn't think goaltenders have a right to expect special treatment.

"That's what I don't think is right. You have to respect the game in the game, too," he said. "You can't expect the rules to protect you at times. That goes for everybody, including us as goaltenders. Who knows, the guy might be coming in full-blast, he looks away, he doesn't see that you're out there and you've got to make sure that you're ready for it. I think it's part of the game."

Hedberg and Bruins goaltender Tuukka Rask both recalled instances where they were in a position like Miller was and got hit. Rask said he understands that sometimes these incidents with contact are unavoidable.

"Everybody knows it. That was just an accident," he said. "Everybody knows that you don't try to take a goalie's head off or anything. Things happen in the game. It's just part of the game and sometimes accidents happen."

As for Buffalo head coach Lindy Ruff's comment that by the League not suspending Milan Lucic it's declaring "fair game" on goaltenders, the Bruins didn't want to engage in much of a war of words.

"No comment on that. They can say whatever they want," Rask said.

Added Julien: "That's just talk. We're certainly not going to get into that. People get frustrated, people talk and you don't hold those kind of things against people like that. They're entitled to their opinion. And you just move along here. We can't react to everything that's being said out there. Everybody has their own opinion, and we're just happy it was dealt with the way it was and we're ready to move on."


"Finger-pointing is easy. In some cases, even therapeutic. Fans need to blame something,

because the outcome is so frustratingly out of their control."
-- Mitch Albom

| Terry Sawchuk & Johnny Bower | | Extra Protection | | "Luckies never cut my wind." | | Straight to the Goal | | Dodging Traffic |
| Tom Waits - Get Behind the Mule | | Mikael Samuelsson Forever | | Mike Grier? |


#120 esteef

esteef

    Legend

  • HoF Booster
  • 8,874 posts

Posted 15 November 2011 - 08:07 PM

Shoulda manned up like Thomas
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txBVdz6UO3U

Yes, because manning up to Henrik Sedin is totally the same as manning up to Lucic.

esteef
"The Wings haven't won a Cup without Darren McCarty since 1955."





Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users