Jump to content


Photo
* - - - - 1 votes

Ramage hit on Oliver


  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#1 freshy

freshy

    Freshy

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 742 posts
  • Location:Apopka, Florida

Posted 04 February 2012 - 10:12 AM

I was flipping through the channels last night and happened to stop on the Wisconsin-St.Cloud State game. I had only caught about 5 minutes of the game when this thing of beauty occurred:
http://www.youtube.c...&v=yWVYug0nlw8#!

Ramage recieved a 5min for "Blow to the head" and also was tossed from the game :scared: Needless to say Papa Eaves & the Wisconsin faithful were less then pleased, and the sport of hockey died a little last night.

Edited by freshy, 04 February 2012 - 10:19 AM.

You gotta be the QB to win the MVP baby! You can't be the punter.

#2 IILeiBlazeII

IILeiBlazeII

    Top-Tier Double Backup

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 130 posts

Posted 04 February 2012 - 10:43 AM

Sad to see the kid get his brain scrambled, but a beautiful hit lined up perfectly by the Wisconsin kid and the kid in black put his head down while entering the neutral zone at the last second. Keep your head up and keep up the clean checks!

Maybe each of my fingers is an undulating shrimp! It's a world of possibilities.

#3 newfy

newfy

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,114 posts

Posted 04 February 2012 - 10:45 AM

Hockey used to be a mans sport, used to get a few scars and learn to handle yourself and keep your head up.

This game is getting softer then baby s***

RIP BOB PROBERT #24


#4 Buppy

Buppy

    1st Line All-Star

  • Silver Booster
  • 1,980 posts

Posted 04 February 2012 - 11:02 AM

Used to be that questionable calls by the refs didn't incite hordes of doomsayers decrying the state of the sport. Ah, the good ol' days...

Given that the kid was bent over pretty far, and was starting to turn inside when he got hit, I'd be inclined to give the hitter a pass. But he did put his shoulder into the guys face, so I can see how the ref might have thought it was worse than it was.

Maybe plays should be reviewed before a player can be ejected, but I don't see this as being all that bad.

#5 mmamolo

mmamolo

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,809 posts

Posted 04 February 2012 - 11:31 AM

I was flipping through the channels last night and happened to stop on the Wisconsin-St.Cloud State game. I had only caught about 5 minutes of the game when this thing of beauty occurred:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yWVYug0nlw8#!

Ramage recieved a 5min for "Blow to the head" and also was tossed from the game :scared: Needless to say Papa Eaves & the Wisconsin faithful were less then pleased, and the sport of hockey died a little last night.

The exact same thing happened to me. I was bored and flipping through channels and noticed the game and I thought I'd put it on to watch a bit of Nick Jensen. Two minutes later the monster hit happens. THat's hilarious

It was a bad call and then SCST goes down a man after the retaliation. It was dumb
Posted Imagewww.unsportsmanlike.ca

#6 Doc Holliday

Doc Holliday

    LGW's impromptu Photoshopper

  • Silver Booster
  • 4,337 posts

Posted 04 February 2012 - 11:31 AM

Bad calls don't spell the end of hockey as we knew it.

Quit being melodramatic.

Posted Image


#7 freshy

freshy

    Freshy

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 742 posts
  • Location:Apopka, Florida

Posted 04 February 2012 - 11:32 AM

Used to be that questionable calls by the refs didn't incite hordes of doomsayers decrying the state of the sport. Ah, the good ol' days...

Given that the kid was bent over pretty far, and was starting to turn inside when he got hit, I'd be inclined to give the hitter a pass. But he did put his shoulder into the guys face, so I can see how the ref might have thought it was worse than it was.

Maybe plays should be reviewed before a player can be ejected, but I don't see this as being all that bad.


Not sure how you see Ramage's shoulder going into the Oliver's face, looks clearly to be hitting him in the shoulder on all the replays. Major point of impact is low causing the guy's stick to snap like a twig. Ramage doesn't leave his feet at all or charge leading up to the hit in any way. The check couldn't have been any cleaner. When I saw Ramage getting a penalty I was shaking my head in disbelief. Then, after a 5 minute discussion by the officials, they tossed him. It was absolutely jaw dropping.

Like Newfy commented, hockey used to be a contact sport. Anyone that played hockey from Bantam level on needed to learn that if you come through the neutral zone with your head down like Oliver did you had a good chance of getting flattened. These type of calls you feel are "questionable" are on the rise. The more calls made like this, the more players will pull up from making a body check to avoid a possible penalty, and the more players with feel comfortable skating through the middle with their heads down. The sport of hockey, just like anything in life, adapts to the constructs of the environment it is in.
You gotta be the QB to win the MVP baby! You can't be the punter.

#8 Majsheppard

Majsheppard

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,512 posts

Posted 04 February 2012 - 11:44 AM

Looked clean to me on every view.
"It is a lot easier to be an ******* to words than to people"-xkcd

Tootoo does NOT belong on this team. He is classless and I would rather see the Wings be bad than classless. I feel the same way about Bertuzzi as well, but he at least CAN make the team better. With Tootoo the team becomes worse and in danger of being classless. Would you have liked Claude on the team? Or Roy? No. So why would you be okay with that POS.

This thread has been closed due to emotions being higher than people's ability to read, interpret, and properly respond to simple posts.

#9 freshy

freshy

    Freshy

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 742 posts
  • Location:Apopka, Florida

Posted 04 February 2012 - 11:45 AM

Bad calls don't spell the end of hockey as we knew it.

Quit being melodramatic.


Hockey is always changing. It's never the same as we "knew it". Apparently it is changing for the better in your opinion, which is cool. I like how someone like Kronwall plays and don't want to have to worry if every big check he makes will end up in a suspension along with a 5 on 5 scrum. Personally I enjoy a nice solid body check as part of the game and don't think it should be legislated out of the sport. How many of these "bad calls" would we have seen 10 years ago? Buppy said he would have given the hitter a pass. No s***, because it was clearly a horrible call. One that no ref would have even contemplated anytime before 2 years ago. That is the entire point.......
You gotta be the QB to win the MVP baby! You can't be the punter.

#10 jollymania

jollymania

    Heavy Hitter

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,610 posts
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 04 February 2012 - 11:51 AM

Bad calls don't spell the end of hockey as we knew it.

Quit being melodramatic.

but why is the bad call made? this call wouldn't have been made 10 years ago.
"I assure you the hits along the boards he(Aaron Downey) constantly threw SEVERAL TIMES EVERY SHIFT were far more damaging hits that what Kronwall throws."
- uk_redwing
HockeyArchive Twitter

#11 wingfan13

wingfan13

    2nd Line Scorer

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 581 posts
  • Location:Austin, TX

Posted 04 February 2012 - 11:51 AM

Bad call but the ref who called it was behind the play and probably only saw the head jerk back thinking an something made contact with his head. Beautiful textbook hit. Arm and elbow down and skates on the ice.
"Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life son"  Dean Wormer, Animal House

#12 esteef

esteef

    Legend

  • HoF Booster
  • 8,874 posts

Posted 04 February 2012 - 12:11 PM

Ice Basketball.

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

#13 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 16,948 posts

Posted 04 February 2012 - 12:18 PM

but why is the bad call made? this call wouldn't have been made 10 years ago.

A bunch of players hooking the crap out of Datsyuk after he deked them out of their jockstrap wouldn't have been called 10 years ago either.

It was a great hit and a bad call. But lamenting the death of hockey as we know it assumes that these calls (or any other problem we don't like with the game) will continue unchanged until it runs the game into the ground. That's not how it works. Players adjust, refs adjust, the league adjusts. The game adapts.

When we came out of the lockout, it felt like you couldn't touch another player without a hooking penalty. After a little while it settled down. With hitting it feels like the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of calling clean hard hits just because the guy had his head down. But I'm hoping they'll figure out some better standards and settle down and adjust.

To me the biggest adjustment they need to make to hitting (other than the obvious east west headshots) are the exploding upwards into hit (Sorry Kronner). Go back to old style hitting of skates on the ice, all the energy directed towards the guys body, not leaping up towards his head.

Again, great hit by Ramage. He totally read that play. And man am I old because so many of the player's names that I recognize now, it turns out to be their kid. Or the player is now a GM.

#14 Doc Holliday

Doc Holliday

    LGW's impromptu Photoshopper

  • Silver Booster
  • 4,337 posts

Posted 04 February 2012 - 12:21 PM

but why is the bad call made? this call wouldn't have been made 10 years ago.


Because the players are bigger, there is more awareness to head injuries, and there is a higher amount of liability in college sports.

I don't think the ignorance of years past is something to speak positively about.

Posted Image


#15 freshy

freshy

    Freshy

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 742 posts
  • Location:Apopka, Florida

Posted 04 February 2012 - 01:02 PM

A bunch of players hooking the crap out of Datsyuk after he deked them out of their jockstrap wouldn't have been called 10 years ago either.

It was a great hit and a bad call. But lamenting the death of hockey as we know it assumes that these calls (or any other problem we don't like with the game) will continue unchanged until it runs the game into the ground. That's not how it works. Players adjust, refs adjust, the league adjusts. The game adapts.

When we came out of the lockout, it felt like you couldn't touch another player without a hooking penalty. After a little while it settled down. With hitting it feels like the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of calling clean hard hits just because the guy had his head down. But I'm hoping they'll figure out some better standards and settle down and adjust.

To me the biggest adjustment they need to make to hitting (other than the obvious east west headshots) are the exploding upwards into hit (Sorry Kronner). Go back to old style hitting of skates on the ice, all the energy directed towards the guys body, not leaping up towards his head.

Again, great hit by Ramage. He totally read that play. And man am I old because so many of the player's names that I recognize now, it turns out to be their kid. Or the player is now a GM.


I get where you're coming from Harold, but I think you're comparing a bit of apples to oranges here.

(Apples)Clutching, grabbing, and hooking are considered universaly to be undesirable aspects in a hockey game. Dats shouldn't have to fight through hooks, and neither should have Gretzky. To call that tighter opens up the game making it better. You're right that the players did adapt and we see less of that god-awful clutching & grabbing now because of the rules being enforced.

(Oranges)Bodychecks on the other hand are a desirable aspect of the game(IMHO). No one wants to see someone get injured obviously, but the game of hockey comes with inherent risks. Concussions being one of them. When calls like this are even in the refs conciousness because of the current climate, it is going to cause that same adaptation we saw with clutching & grabbing occur with hitting.

I think the game should err on the side of no call in these instances. Kronner's type of hits I see as OK. He is always North-South and isn't taking 10 steps(Pronger) before laying into someone. If they don't want to get hit they need to keep their head up(I'm looking at you Havlat). Making the call of feet being on ice before or after contact being made is way to difficult in game speed for refs to determine so shouldn't be a factor IMO. Again, err on the side of the hitter.
You gotta be the QB to win the MVP baby! You can't be the punter.

#16 kipwinger

kipwinger

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,789 posts
  • Location:Mt. Pleasant, MI

Posted 04 February 2012 - 02:29 PM

It was a good hit, and a bad call. Nuff said. Seems like every time a call gets blown there's always a bunch of people screaming referee conspiracy or the end of the game as we know it. The game's still physical and always will be, I don't think anyone actually believes that they didn't blow calls in years past.

GMRwings:  "Well, in other civilized countries, 16 years old isn't considered underage.  For instance, I believe the age of consent is 16 in Canada.  There's some US states where it's 16 as well.  

 

Get off the high horse.  Not like she was 10."

 

"Some girls are 17 even though they look 25."

 

 


#17 Buppy

Buppy

    1st Line All-Star

  • Silver Booster
  • 1,980 posts

Posted 04 February 2012 - 04:08 PM

Not sure how you see Ramage's shoulder going into the Oliver's face, looks clearly to be hitting him in the shoulder on all the replays. Major point of impact is low causing the guy's stick to snap like a twig. Ramage doesn't leave his feet at all or charge leading up to the hit in any way. The check couldn't have been any cleaner. When I saw Ramage getting a penalty I was shaking my head in disbelief. Then, after a 5 minute discussion by the officials, they tossed him. It was absolutely jaw dropping.
...

His shoulder very cleary hits the guy in the facemask. Doesn't make it a dirty hit or even a penalty, but there was contact with the head. I don't know the college rule, and going by NHL rules I wouldn't call it a penalty. I wouldn't say the head was targetted or the principle point of contact.

Just saying that with all the attention on head hits and concussions, I can understand why a call was made.

...Like Newfy commented, hockey used to be a contact sport. Anyone that played hockey from Bantam level on needed to learn that if you come through the neutral zone with your head down like Oliver did you had a good chance of getting flattened. These type of calls you feel are "questionable" are on the rise. The more calls made like this, the more players will pull up from making a body check to avoid a possible penalty, and the more players with feel comfortable skating through the middle with their heads down. The sport of hockey, just like anything in life, adapts to the constructs of the environment it is in.
...

Hockey is always changing. It's never the same as we "knew it". Apparently it is changing for the better in your opinion, which is cool. I like how someone like Kronwall plays and don't want to have to worry if every big check he makes will end up in a suspension along with a 5 on 5 scrum. Personally I enjoy a nice solid body check as part of the game and don't think it should be legislated out of the sport. How many of these "bad calls" would we have seen 10 years ago? Buppy said he would have given the hitter a pass. No s***, because it was clearly a horrible call. One that no ref would have even contemplated anytime before 2 years ago. That is the entire point.......

There's a reason slippery slope arguments are considered fallacious. Refs are probably a little over-zealous when calling headshots. That doesn't mean it won't improve as refs and players adapt to the new rules, and certainly doesn't mean that refs will become over-zealous in calling other types of hits.

I get where you're coming from Harold, but I think you're comparing a bit of apples to oranges here.

(Apples)Clutching, grabbing, and hooking are considered universaly to be undesirable aspects in a hockey game. Dats shouldn't have to fight through hooks, and neither should have Gretzky. To call that tighter opens up the game making it better. You're right that the players did adapt and we see less of that god-awful clutching & grabbing now because of the rules being enforced.

(Oranges)Bodychecks on the other hand are a desirable aspect of the game(IMHO). No one wants to see someone get injured obviously, but the game of hockey comes with inherent risks. Concussions being one of them. When calls like this are even in the refs conciousness because of the current climate, it is going to cause that same adaptation we saw with clutching & grabbing occur with hitting.

I think the game should err on the side of no call in these instances. Kronner's type of hits I see as OK. He is always North-South and isn't taking 10 steps(Pronger) before laying into someone. If they don't want to get hit they need to keep their head up(I'm looking at you Havlat). Making the call of feet being on ice before or after contact being made is way to difficult in game speed for refs to determine so shouldn't be a factor IMO. Again, err on the side of the hitter.

No one is trying to get rid of body checks. They are trying to reduce head injuries. I would think that head injuries are more 'universally undesireable' than tapping a guy on the hip or mitts with a stick.

A good arm tackle used to be considered "defense". Used to be fine (sometimes still is) to rub a guy out along the boards after he chips the puck past you. Used to be fine to try to take a guys head off if he didn't see you coming.

Yes, there are inherent risks to the game. However, exaclty what those risks are hasn't been known for long, and I'd bet are still not widely understood by the players. Head injuries can have permanent debilitating effects on people. Players have been getting bigger and faster. Equipment gives better protection so players feel the need to more agressive. As the game becomes more violent, and the risks better understood, you'll get adaptations like this to minimize those risks.

Yeah, maybe you'll see people pulling up on these hits more often. And really, so what? Hits like that happen maybe once a game. If that's all hockey is to you then I'd have to say you're no more a fan of hockey than the guy who tunes into NASCAR for the crashes is a fan of racing. There are big hits that don't involve head contact, and they very rarely result in injury. If anything, I'd expect players to become more adept at laying a big hit without hitting the head.

People always say they don't want to see someone get injured, but it seems to me that is exactly what they want. Maybe not a lasting injury, but you all sure cheer loud enough when someone gets knocked senseless. Well, guess what. That's a brain injury. Maybe not severe, maybe not one that will cause any lasting harm, but an injury just the same. We still do not really understand how those little injuries can add up.

Much better to err on the side of caution. Worst-case we see fewer big hits and fewer injuries. Players are always going to push the envelope; try to get away with as much as possible without crossing the line (or getting caught doing so at least). If you're too lax with the rules, the worst-case is you see a lot more frequent and more severe head injuries. I'd certainly prefer the former.

#18 kipwinger

kipwinger

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,789 posts
  • Location:Mt. Pleasant, MI

Posted 04 February 2012 - 04:13 PM

His shoulder very cleary hits the guy in the facemask. Doesn't make it a dirty hit or even a penalty, but there was contact with the head. I don't know the college rule, and going by NHL rules I wouldn't call it a penalty. I wouldn't say the head was targetted or the principle point of contact.

Just saying that with all the attention on head hits and concussions, I can understand why a call was made.


There's a reason slippery slope arguments are considered fallacious. Refs are probably a little over-zealous when calling headshots. That doesn't mean it won't improve as refs and players adapt to the new rules, and certainly doesn't mean that refs will become over-zealous in calling other types of hits.


No one is trying to get rid of body checks. They are trying to reduce head injuries. I would think that head injuries are more 'universally undesireable' than tapping a guy on the hip or mitts with a stick.

A good arm tackle used to be considered "defense". Used to be fine (sometimes still is) to rub a guy out along the boards after he chips the puck past you. Used to be fine to try to take a guys head off if he didn't see you coming.

Yes, there are inherent risks to the game. However, exaclty what those risks are hasn't been known for long, and I'd bet are still not widely understood by the players. Head injuries can have permanent debilitating effects on people. Players have been getting bigger and faster. Equipment gives better protection so players feel the need to more agressive. As the game becomes more violent, and the risks better understood, you'll get adaptations like this to minimize those risks.

Yeah, maybe you'll see people pulling up on these hits more often. And really, so what? Hits like that happen maybe once a game. If that's all hockey is to you then I'd have to say you're no more a fan of hockey than the guy who tunes into NASCAR for the crashes is a fan of racing. There are big hits that don't involve head contact, and they very rarely result in injury. If anything, I'd expect players to become more adept at laying a big hit without hitting the head.

People always say they don't want to see someone get injured, but it seems to me that is exactly what they want. Maybe not a lasting injury, but you all sure cheer loud enough when someone gets knocked senseless. Well, guess what. That's a brain injury. Maybe not severe, maybe not one that will cause any lasting harm, but an injury just the same. We still do not really understand how those little injuries can add up.

Much better to err on the side of caution. Worst-case we see fewer big hits and fewer injuries. Players are always going to push the envelope; try to get away with as much as possible without crossing the line (or getting caught doing so at least). If you're too lax with the rules, the worst-case is you see a lot more frequent and more severe head injuries. I'd certainly prefer the former.


Well said. Question: do you ever get tired of being reasonable and considerate when you respond to this stuff? Seems like having to sift through ten tons of reactionary bulls*** everyday would begin to take it's toll. Either way, keep up the good work.

GMRwings:  "Well, in other civilized countries, 16 years old isn't considered underage.  For instance, I believe the age of consent is 16 in Canada.  There's some US states where it's 16 as well.  

 

Get off the high horse.  Not like she was 10."

 

"Some girls are 17 even though they look 25."

 

 


#19 freshy

freshy

    Freshy

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 742 posts
  • Location:Apopka, Florida

Posted 04 February 2012 - 08:33 PM

His shoulder very cleary hits the guy in the facemaskChest. Doesn't make it a dirty hit or even a penalty, but there was contact with the headchest. I don't know the college rule, and going by NHL rules I wouldn't call it a penalty. I wouldn't say the head was targetted or the principle point of contact.

Just saying that with all the attention on head hits and concussions, I can understand why a call was made.


I fixed it for you since you seemed to be watching some other incident. His entire body snapped back because it was a crushing body shot. I understand why the call was made too, and that is what worries me.



There's a reason slippery slope arguments are considered fallacious. Refs are probably a little over-zealous when calling headshots. That doesn't mean it won't improve as refs and players adapt to the new rules, and certainly doesn't mean that refs will become over-zealous in calling other types of hits.


You're right, we can't predict the exact future of how this will play out. We can only go by what we see happenning in the present. That call was horrendous. What slippery slope are you talking about? They threw the guy out for a perfectly clean bodycheck at center ice. You say they may get better, I say the trend is to call anything that appears to impact a player hard in the upper part of the body.

No one is trying to get rid of body checks. They are trying to reduce head injuries. I would think that head injuries are more 'universally undesireable' than tapping a guy on the hip or mitts with a stick.


Unfortunatly, with any bodycheck comes the inherent risk of sustaining a concussion. Fostering a culture of hypersensitivity of hard checking because of the off chance that a player will sustain one is dumb. No one is arguing against those obvious elbows up, 10 step stupid ass moves that people like Matt Cooke do. If the league were serious about concussion problems they should look at hard shelled equipment, no touch icing etc... Not start ordering the whistle when someone takes a hit that looks bad because they failed to keep their head up.

Yes, there are inherent risks to the game. However, exaclty what those risks are hasn't been known for long, and I'd bet are still not widely understood by the players. Head injuries can have permanent debilitating effects on people. Players have been getting bigger and faster. Equipment gives better protection so players feel the need to more agressive. As the game becomes more violent, and the risks better understood, you'll get adaptations like this to minimize those risks.


What inherent risks haven't been known? That participating in ice hockey can lead to concussions? That's the whole reason you sign a liability waver anytime you play any sport. You are acknowledging and accepting the possibility your participation in it could cause bodily harm, even death.

Yeah, maybe you'll see people pulling up on these hits more often. And really, so what? Hits like that happen maybe once a game. If that's all hockey is to you then I'd have to say you're no more a fan of hockey than the guy who tunes into NASCAR for the crashes is a fan of racing. There are big hits that don't involve head contact, and they very rarely result in injury. If anything, I'd expect players to become more adept at laying a big hit without hitting the head.


So what? Because hitting(especially the open-ice variety)is an integral part of the game of hockey. It is a unique skill that I enjoy watching. Most times it occurs because of the very fact a player gets caught with their head down. Inherent risk. Not sure where you are going with the NASCAR reference. I can only assume it was to try to hold yourself up as somehow superior to me in your fandom. Whatever.....I like all aspects of the game of hockey, solid checks being one of them.

People always say they don't want to see someone get injured, but it seems to me that is exactly what they want. Maybe not a lasting injury, but you all sure cheer loud enough when someone gets knocked senseless.


Back on your high horse again here I see. What evidence pray-tell is there that any of what I have posted could give you the impression I wanted to see Oliver get injured? Dude made a bad decision and paid the price. I feel bad for the kid, but it's an unfortunate part of hockey that if you skate across the middle with your head down you run the risk of getting rocked.

Well, guess what. That's a brain injury. Maybe not severe, maybe not one that will cause any lasting harm, but an injury just the same. We still do not really understand how those little injuries can add up.


Sure we do. Recurrent small brain injuries add up over the long run. This isn't new information.


Much better to err on the side of caution. Worst-case we see fewer big hits and fewer injuries. Players are always going to push the envelope; try to get away with as much as possible without crossing the line (or getting caught doing so at least). If you're too lax with the rules, the worst-case is you see a lot more frequent and more severe head injuries. I'd certainly prefer the former.


It's a balance of risk or reward. North-South hits where a player may/maynot have his head down and gets clocked err on the side of the hitter I say. Not blow the whistle and give a penalty if their is a hard check followed by a head jerking and a yard sale on the ice. You're correct in players will try to push the rules. How long until they figure out that turning their back or dropping their head at the last second will result in a penalty for the opposition?
You gotta be the QB to win the MVP baby! You can't be the punter.

#20 Donaldjr2448

Donaldjr2448

    LETS GO REDWINGS!!

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,065 posts
  • Location:Fenton, MI. The land of grid lock

Posted 04 February 2012 - 09:21 PM

Here is the biggest issue with the hit. The hit is clean as clean can be, but every DAMN time a player gets hit he or team of the player that gets hit decides they need to fight the hitter. This is whats wrong; fights after clean hits. I am so sick of these meaningless fights after good clean hits. As far as I'm concerned, the scrums after clean hits need to be penalized in either 5 minute delay of games or 5 and 10. Keep your head up and hits like this will not happen. Or how about getting the hitter back later on with yet another clean check.

I don't know about anyone else, but nothing frustrates more than these scrums, just like our buddy Kesler wanting to fight Kronner after a good clean hit. :ranting:





Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users